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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context: output is identical to waste_rule_catalog and the catalogue is 'payment-free', which is behavioral information not available from annotations. It stops short of describing the catalogue contents or any invocation quirks.

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?

Three tight clauses with the alias framing, migration guidance, and rationale front-loaded in that order. No sentence is redundant and nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the definition needn't describe return values, and it still notes the output matches waste_rule_catalog. For a zero-parameter deprecated alias, everything an agent needs to select or skip it is present.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure, and the schema confirms an empty argument object.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (returns the supported-role/activity catalogue) and explicitly identifies itself as a legacy alias of waste_rule_catalog. An agent can distinguish it from waste_rule_catalog, waste_rule_info, and the other siblings without opening a schema.

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 routes new integrations to waste_rule_catalog and explains the only condition under which this tool should be used: preserving older installed connectors that would otherwise fail with 'Unknown tool'. When-to-use and when-to-prefer-the-alternative are both stated.

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