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

The annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds useful lifecycle context: it is an earlier name retained so cards opened before the rename still work. This informs compatibility behavior beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted language, and the most important constraint ('never by the model') is front-loaded.

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?

Given full schema documentation, annotations declaring it safe/idempotent, and no output schema, the description provides the key context an agent needs: this is a legacy card-only path. It could be slightly more complete by naming the current replacement, but it is nearly sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the three optional parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable but does not exceed the baseline.

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?

The description identifies this as a legacy alias for a puzzle step, but does not itself state the action (starting today's puzzle) or name the current replacement. The title and tool name carry most of the purpose; the description mainly adds deprecation context.

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?

It gives a clear exclusion: 'Used only by the puzzle card, never by the model,' which directly guides the agent away from invoking it. It explains the compatibility context but does not explicitly name the current sibling tool to use instead.

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