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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool is a compatibility alias, implying identical behavior to docs_list_sections, but gives no details about what that behavior involves (e.g., return values, auth needs, side effects). The alias relationship is insufficient without describing the actual functionality.

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 two short sentences, each with a specific purpose: stating what the tool is and giving usage direction. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words.

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 simple alias with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficient to guide an agent to the preferred docs_list_sections tool. It doesn't need to explain return values or behavior since the underlying tool is available as a sibling, but it could have added a one-line note about what the aliased tool actually does.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, the baseline for parameter semantics is 4, indicating no further explanation is necessary.

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 identifies the tool as a compatibility alias for docs_list_sections, which differentiates it from the preferred sibling. It does not explicitly state the underlying functionality (listing documentation sections) but the name conveys that. This is clear but could be more specific about actual behavior.

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 says 'Prefer docs_list_sections for new clients,' giving a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directive. This is exactly the kind of alternative-based guidance expected, with the preferred tool named.

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