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 discloses the critical behavioral trait that the tool is deprecated, which is valuable, but says nothing about side effects, auth needs, or whether the tool still functions vs. errors out. 'Calculate' implies a read, but that is inference rather than 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?

Two short clauses with the deprecation warning front-loaded before the tool's function. Nothing is wasted and the most important information appears first.

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 deprecated single-parameter tool the deprecation pointer is the essential content and it is present, but the undocumented parameter and absent behavioral details (does it still return a value? does it error?) leave gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it at all.

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% and the single parameter (chokepoint_id, default 'HORMUZ') is never mentioned in the description. No format, accepted values, or meaning of the default is added, so the agent gets nothing beyond the bare schema field name.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Calculate Chokepoint Disruption Risk') and immediately routes the agent to the successor tool, so it is distinguishable from the evaluate_* siblings. The abbreviation 'CDR' is only expanded inside the sentence, but the meaning is 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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Use evaluate_chokepoint_disruption instead'), which is the single most useful guidance this description can give. It stops short of spelling out any remaining condition under which the deprecated tool should still be called, but the intent is clear.

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