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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: 'catalog-backed, does not execute code' reinforces no side effects, and the explicit pricing ($0.001 USDC or 1000 drops XRP) is unique behavioral information not present in annotations. This goes beyond the baseline and gives the agent key operational details.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence serves a distinct role: return description, usage context, alternative routing, and cost/behavior. There is zero filler and the structure leads with the main function, making it efficient for quick scanning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, when to use it, how it differs from siblings, and its side-effect-free nature. No critical operational detail 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter 'framework' is fully described in the schema: 'Optional. One of langchain, llamaindex, ollama, or xrpl. Omit to list every known deprecation.' The description's phrase 'for one framework or all four at once' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Return'), the resource ('known-deprecated API catalog'), the fields (id, old API, replacement, fix), and the scope (one framework or all four). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it works 'without a stack trace or source snippet' and names alternative tools for error logs and code review, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you want the full deprecation list without a stack trace or source snippet.' It further specifies alternatives: 'Prefer diagnose_framework_error when you have an error_log and review_framework_code when you have code.' This clearly routes the agent based on available context, leaving no inference required.

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