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

Beyond annotations that already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds key behaviors: it returns public supporting product context, is capped at two products, and is read-only (without modifying anything). The deprecation note is also behavioral.

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 extremely concise: two sentences cover deprecation, input, and behavior. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (deprecation, alias) is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the deprecation status, input requirements, return behavior, and non-destructive nature, leaving no major gaps for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that the single required parameter 'slug_or_id' accepts a question slug or ULID. This provides the agent with crucial semantic information beyond the schema's basic string type constraints.

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 explicitly states it is a deprecated read-only alias for get_ranked_products_for_question, clearly identifying the tool's purpose and distinguishing it from its sibling. It specifies the action (get), the resource (ranked product for question), and constraints (capped at two products).

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 directly guides the agent by labeling the tool as deprecated and directing to the alternative get_ranked_products_for_question. It also specifies the required input (slug_or_id) and its accepted formats (question slug or ULID).

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