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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It only mentions deprecation and removal, which is a behavioral trait, but gives no information about side effects, read-only nature, or expected return format. This is a significant gap for a tool that may still be invoked.

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 concise and front-loaded with the deprecation warning, which is the most critical information. However, it could have included a brief mention of the 'variant' parameter without losing conciseness.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is incomplete for a functional tool. The deprecation note mitigates this somewhat by redirecting users, but the tool itself remains under-specified.

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 input schema has a single 'variant' parameter with no description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on what values are valid or how the parameter affects the status.

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 'Get chess game status' with a specific verb and resource, and the deprecation note distinguishes it from the alternative play_check_status. However, it does not elaborate on what 'status' encompasses, making it somewhat vague but still functional.

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 explicitly directs users to use play_check_status instead and gives a removal timeline ('Removal: v1.0.0'), providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool and what alternative to choose.

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