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

The annotations already cover safety and idempotency (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds the deprecation status and alias relationship, but does not explain what 'identical behavior' actually entails beyond referring to the sibling. For a caller unfamiliar with pubmed_get_full_text, the behavioral disclosure is thin.

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 compact: it announces deprecation first, names the canonical replacement, and states the backward-compatibility reason. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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, the description is complete enough to support correct tool selection: it routes new callers away and existing callers to the canonical tool. The single parameter is fully described and annotations cover the operational profile. The only minor gap is that return behavior is not explicitly described, but 'identical behavior' and the tool name mitigate this.

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 fully documents the single parameter, explaining that pmid can be either a PubMed ID or a PMC ID. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 states exactly what the tool is: a deprecated alias for pubmed_get_full_text with identical behavior. This unambiguously identifies the function and distinguishes it from the canonical sibling, so an agent immediately knows what it does and how it relates to other tools.

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 tells new callers to use pubmed_get_full_text instead and clarifies the only legitimate use case: existing callers. This is a model of when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming the specific alternative.

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