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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two behavioral traits: 'Read-only' and the result ordering rule ('Ranks NO_MANDATE / NEEDS_REVIEW lower'). It omits pagination/limits, but for a deprecated zero-param read tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Deprecation warning is correctly front-loaded, followed by resource and behavior in short clauses. Slightly awkward line breaks and an adjective-free noun phrase cost it a point, but there is essentially no waste.

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 explained, and the tool's real function (route to molcheck_registry) is fully conveyed. Nothing critical is missing for a deprecated alias with no parameters.

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?

Zero parameters (baseline 4) and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add or omit.

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 identifies the resource as 'Agents with committed mandates and their current verdict' and explicitly frames this tool as a deprecated alias of molcheck_registry, which lets an agent place it relative to siblings. The purpose is understandable, though the noun phrase lacks an explicit verb (list/query).

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?

It gives direct, explicit routing: 'Deprecated alias of molcheck_registry; use that name.' An agent knows immediately not to call this and which sibling to call instead — the strongest form of when/when-not guidance.

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