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

The description adds deprecation status and corrects the misleading tool name by stating the real operation: syncing Search Console data. Annotations already cover safety hints such as destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the remaining gap around permission or rate-limit behavior is minor.

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?

The description is one front-loaded sentence that begins with the most important signal, DEPRECATED. It uses the remaining text efficiently to explain the replacement and correct the misleading name.

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?

For a deprecated one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent everything needed: do not use it, use sync_search_console instead, and understand what it actually does. Schema and annotations cover the rest.

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 single site_id parameter is already documented in the schema as 'The site ID'. The description adds no further parameter meaning, format, or constraints, which matches the 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?

The description explicitly states the tool is deprecated, names the replacement sync_search_console, and clarifies that despite its name it syncs Search Console data rather than submitting a sitemap. This gives an agent a precise, unambiguous understanding of what the tool actually does and how it differs from the sibling it points to.

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 explicitly says 'use sync_search_console' and marks the tool as deprecated, leaving no inference required. The agent is told exactly when not to use this tool and which alternative to use instead.

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