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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds the useful guarantee that the response is identical to the successor's, but says nothing about network cost, latency, failure modes, or what happens with an invalid/non-HTTPS url.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation status and immediately followed by the migration instruction. The 'takes a url parameter' clause is the only near-redundant fragment and could be dropped without loss.

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 single-parameter, read-only deprecation alias with a fully documented schema and no output schema, nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing. Migration path, equivalence to the successor, and parameter shape are all covered.

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 100% and the url parameter's format, HTTPS requirement, and purpose are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that it 'takes a url parameter,' adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states the tool is a 'Deprecated alias of agentx_x402_doctor' and that it is the same check with the same response, which lets an agent place it relative to the named sibling. It stops short of saying what the check actually does (spec-checking a paid endpoint), leaving that to the schema's url description.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: new callers should use agentx_x402_doctor, while the alias remains for existing clients. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are both spelled out, and the successor tool is named exactly.

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