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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool is superseded, is only a routing signpost, is not Shop-Graded, and has a 2 MESH/call cost. It does not fully explain what happens if called, but for a placeholder that is acceptable given the explicit supersession warning.

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The description is compact, front-loads the critical SUPERSEDED status, and every sentence adds necessary routing or deprecation information. There is no wasted text.

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For a placeholder tool, the description is complete: it states that it is superseded, identifies the correct replacements, clarifies its routing-signpost role, and even includes cost and grading status. The rich sibling list and schema further support agent decision-making.

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 schema fully documents the single 'input' parameter with examples, so the description does not need to add much. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is fine at the baseline given 100% schema coverage.

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The description explicitly states this tool is a superseded placeholder that exists only as a routing signpost, not a working TTS/STT tool. It clearly names the live alternatives (grok-tts, grok-stt), so an agent can immediately tell what this tool is and is not.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use grok-tts for text-to-speech and grok-stt for speech-to-text instead. It also notes the placeholder is not Shop-Graded, which helps an agent decide whether to invoke it at all.

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