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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the alias status and does not disclose any operational behavior such as side effects, return format, or safety traits. The actual behavior remains opaque without knowledge of docs_fetch.

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 a single sentence, 8 words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded with the core message and achieves its purpose of redirecting to docs_fetch efficiently.

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?

Despite the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, its return value, or any behavioral traits. It merely points to docs_fetch, leaving the agent without sufficient context unless it separately looks up docs_fetch.

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 description covers 100% of the single parameter 'url', fully explaining its meaning with an example. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema is sufficient, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it is a 'Compatibility alias for docs_fetch', which implies it provides the same functionality as docs_fetch, but it does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., fetch documentation content). It is not a tautology, but the purpose is vague and relies on the reader knowing what docs_fetch does.

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 instructs to 'Prefer docs_fetch for new clients', clearly indicating when not to use this tool and naming the preferred alternative. 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.