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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that null is returned when nothing is deprecated and that includeUsage can reveal whether anyone still calls the endpoint. No side effects or destructive actions are indicated, and nothing contradicts the annotation.

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 compact and well-structured: it starts with what the tool retrieves, notes the null behavior, and then gives the key usage tip. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 that there is no output schema, the description covers the main return contents (phase, sunset date, successor, migration guide) and the null case. It also mentions the prerequisite of project context and the optional usage data flag. It does not describe error conditions or exact response formatting, but for a read-only lookup tool the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover all parameters well, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for includeUsage by framing it as a way to check whether anyone still calls the endpoint before retirement, which goes beyond the schema's 'recent traffic and top consumers' wording. The other parameters remain adequately documented by the schema.

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 clearly states the tool gets a deprecation plan for one endpoint or published version and lists the key fields returned (phase, sunset date, successor, migration guide). It also distinguishes this from broader deprecation listings by focusing on a single entity, making its purpose immediately understandable.

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 description gives concrete guidance on using includeUsage to check active callers before retiring and notes that project context is required. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_deprecation_policy or list_deprecations, but the 'one endpoint or published version' phrasing and parameter guidance provide enough orientation for most use cases.

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