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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is deprecated, retained only for older setups, and functionally identical to report_issue. It does not describe side effects in more detail, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 deprecation notice is front-loaded, and the description uses two tight sentences with no redundant restatement. Every sentence carries operational value.

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 alias with a fully described schema, annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to route correctly: deprecation status, replacement tool, equivalence, and an important non-bug exclusion.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description only lightly reinforces the purpose as reporting a bug or idea and does not add syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies this as the deprecated old name of report_issue and states it does exactly the same thing: report a bug or idea about Edge itself. This makes the tool's purpose and its relation to a sibling 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?

It gives a direct instruction to call report_issue instead, plus a specific exclusion: "A host approval denial is not an Edge bug." That is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with the preferred alternative named.

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