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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the tool's legacy/deprecated alias status, but says nothing about return content, pagination, or filtering behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (legacy alias, prefer get_results) is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 whose main job is to redirect agents to get_results, the description is arguably sufficient at the routing level. But with 7 under-documented parameters and no output schema, an agent that must actually invoke this tool gets no help understanding its behavior or arguments.

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 schema has 7 parameters with only 14% description coverage, and the description contributes no parameter information at all. With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate and instead provides zero guidance on brand_id, days, limit, cursor, family, verdict, or user_intent.

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 identifies the tool as a 'legacy alias for get_results,' which tells the agent what it fundamentally is and differentiates it from the modern sibling. However, it never states the actual verb+resource or what data is retrieved, so the domain purpose is only implied through delegation to get_results.

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 explicitly routes new integrations to get_results, which is a clear alternative and an implied when-not to use this tool. It stops short of a full 5 because it never describes the legacy scenario in which using get_proof is still appropriate.

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