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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It offers nothing about what the tool does behaviorally—no read-vs-write indication, no side effects, no return format, no prerequisites. A deprecation tag is not behavioral 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?

It is very short and front-loads the deprecation notice, which is the most important information. But the brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency—there is simply almost no content.

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 domain tool with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. The one useful element (deprecation pointer) is present, but everything else an agent needs to call this legacy tool correctly is absent.

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 0% for 3 parameters (origin_port, chokepoint_id, destination_port). The description does not mention any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the schema's total lack of documentation. Defaults exist but their semantics are unexplained.

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 is essentially just a title restated: 'Supply Chain Disruption Early Warning.' It does not state a verb+resource, what the tool computes, or what an 'early warning' evaluation actually returns. The deprecation notice points to a successor but does not otherwise clarify purpose.

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 deprecation tag explicitly steers the agent to evaluate_end_to_end_supply_chain_risk, which is useful routing guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when this legacy tool would still be appropriate, nor any exclusions or context beyond 'use the other one.'

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