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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context—it identifies the data source ('RemodelerIQ bid corpus') and the nature of the output ('aggregate red-flag statistics'), but these largely restate the title. No description-annotation contradiction exists, and the description does not add significant behavioral details beyond what annotations and schema already provide.

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, front-loaded with the deprecation warning, and every word earns its place. No fluff or repetition. This is exemplary for a deprecated tool where brevity aids quick decision-making.

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?

Given that the tool is deprecated, the description successfully directs agents away from using it. It provides purpose and a clear alternative. The presence of a full output schema and complete parameter documentation means the description doesn't need to explain return values or filters. While it lacks details about what 'red-flag statistics' precisely include, this is adequately handled by the output schema and the preferred sibling tool.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (state_code, project_type, bid_size_bucket), and schema coverage is 100%. The description itself does not add parameter-specific information, but the schema handles the heavy lifting. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description offers no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get aggregate red-flag statistics from the RemodelerIQ bid corpus.' The verb 'Get' specifies the action, and the resource ('aggregate red-flag statistics') is specific. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly marking this as deprecated and pointing to remodeleriq_get_risk_stats as the preferred alternative.

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 explicitly says 'Deprecated: prefer remodeleriq_get_risk_stats', which is a clear directive on when not to use this tool and which alternative to use instead. This is a strong when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guideline, fully satisfying the dimension.

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