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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations don't: that the call is payment-free and exists purely as a compatibility shim, which explains why it should not be preferred. No return-shape or failure-mode detail beyond the 'Unknown tool' note.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the LEGACY status so an agent reads the critical routing signal first. Every clause earns its place: deprecation, replacement, rationale, and payload.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes the payload. With no parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 there are no semantics to document; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required by describing a fixed metadata return.

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 exactly what it is ('LEGACY COMPATIBILITY alias for waste_service_info') and what it returns ('the same payment-free service metadata'). Names the sibling it mirrors, so an agent can distinguish it from waste_service_info without opening either 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_service_info and explains the only condition for using this tool: older installed connectors that would otherwise fail with 'Unknown tool'. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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