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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content context: entries are dated and include citations plus reviewed alternatives. It says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the schema's limit cap, or the shape of results, which is the remaining gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the collection and its contents with no filler sentences. The 'Kingy AI Graveyard' branding is slightly promotional but still conveys the scope 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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter browse tool with no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what entries look like (dated, cited, with alternatives). It omits default result size, sort order, and how the group filter changes output, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 67%; limit and query already carry descriptions in the schema. The description does add value by enumerating tools, models, and transitions, which maps directly onto the otherwise undocumented 'group' enum. It gives no detail on query matching behavior or the default ordering, so it stays at baseline.

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 names a specific resource and its three content types: dated shutdowns of AI tools, retirements of AI models, and business transitions, with citations and alternatives. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like find_model_changes by focusing on retired/discontinued products rather than changes, though the listing verb comes only from the tool name.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no reference to alternatives such as find_model_changes or search_kingy. An agent must infer from the phrase 'AI Graveyard' that this is a browsable catalog of retired products rather than a change feed or general search.

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