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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the deprecation/aliasing behavior (identical side effects to report_issue) and a caveat about what does not qualify as an issue. It doesn't describe what happens after submission or any rate limits, but for a deprecated passthrough alias that is acceptable.

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 so an agent knows immediately to prefer the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema and full schema coverage, the description only needs to explain the tool's status and when to prefer its replacement, which it does. Minor gap: it doesn't say what a successful call returns or whether the report is acknowledged, though that is low-stakes for a deprecated alias.

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 kind, message, contact, and request_id are already fully documented in the schema, including the enum values and the privacy warning. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

States precisely what the tool is (the old name of report_issue) and what it does (report a bug or idea about Edge itself). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling report_issue without opening either schema.

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 instruction: 'Call report_issue instead; this does exactly the same thing,' plus the retention condition for older setups. It also adds a negative case ('A host approval denial is not an Edge bug'), so the agent knows one class of input that should not reach this tool.

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