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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the deprecation status and the core listing behavior, but does not mention any other behavioral traits (e.g., filtering, grouping, output format). For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the deprecation warning and replacement, then a minimal functional description. No wasted words; each segment serves a purpose.

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 tool, the description is nearly complete: it tells you not to use it, what it does, and where to go instead. The only missing piece is the parameter semantics, which is partially excused by the deprecated status but still leaves a gap.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'group' parameter at all. There is no added meaning about what the parameter does or how it affects results. This is a significant gap.

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's function: 'List chess variants.' The deprecation notice and pointer to 'play_list_variants' make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from the sibling tool that replaces it.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'use play_list_variants' instead, giving a clear alternative and indicating when NOT to use this tool (since it's deprecated). This is strong usage guidance.

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