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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and usefully states that every claim includes a source and date, plus replacement guidance. It also scopes the tool to NEAR. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or no-match/error semantics, but the check-style operation and provenance details cover the main behavioral expectations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by concrete examples, a usage trigger, and a scope restriction. Every sentence contributes useful selection or formatting information, and there is no filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what kind of answer to expect: deprecation/removal/change status, replacement guidance, and source/date provenance. It could say more about output shape or no-result behavior, but it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that the name should be passed exactly as code or config uses it, with concrete examples covering scoped npm packages, crates, identifiers, RPC methods, repositories, and hosts. The limit parameter is left to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and target: check whether a named NEAR package, crate, repository, RPC method, protocol feature, config key, or hosted service is deprecated, removed, or changed, and what replaces it. It also adds source/date provenance, making the tool's purpose more precise than a generic search or changelog tool.

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 a clear usage trigger: use before writing or reviewing NEAR code that names a package or API from memory. It also gives an exclusion: NEAR only, and packages from other chains should use their own tools. It does not explicitly route between sibling tools such as get_breaking_changes or resolve_package.

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