Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, openWorldHint), so the bar is lowered. The description still adds real behavior: matching is exact and covers Bedrock, Vertex AI, LiteLLM and OpenRouter spellings, plus what each result contains. It does not mention input limits (200 files, size caps) but that is minor here.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with what is scanned and what matching rules apply. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (shutdown date, days left, recommended replacement, source page, file:line locations). Inputs, matching rules, and outputs are all covered; only scan limits and error/empty-result behavior are unmentioned.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents path and content. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb-and-resource pair: scanning source and config files for retired or scheduled-for-retirement AI model IDs. It also names the vendor set and spelling variants, which distinguishes it from list_model_retirements (a catalog listing) and lookup_model (a single-model lookup).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The constraint 'exact matches only' implies intent, but the description never says when to pick this tool over siblings like list_model_retirements or lookup_model. Usage is inferable from the scanning framing rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.