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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only deprecation status. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, response shape, or what the computed index represents – thin for a tool with zero structured coverage.

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 tightly packed clauses, with the deprecation warning front-loaded so an agent sees the redirect before anything else. No wasted words.

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?

The deprecation redirect is the most important context and is present, which is adequate for steering an agent away. However, with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description would be insufficient if the tool were actually invoked.

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 the single parameter port_or_corridor_id, and the description adds no meaning about valid port/corridor identifiers or the significance of the NLRTM default. The parameter name is somewhat self-describing, keeping this above a 1.

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 (Calculate) and resource (Intermodal Rail Delay Index), plus a deprecation banner that names the replacement tool. An agent can identify what it does and that it is superseded without opening the schema, though the acronym 'IRDI' is only expanded in the description, not differentiated from sibling index tools like get_pci_index.

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 declares the tool deprecated and routes the agent to get_inland_logistics_bottlenecks instead, which is the correct when-to-use guidance. This is the strongest form of alternative-routing a description can provide.

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