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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's only added context is the deprecation/back-compat status, and it never confirms that behavior is identical to getSkill or that the alias will eventually be removed.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the essential fact and free of filler. It is arguably over-compressed for a tool whose actual function is never named, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple one-param read tool with full annotation coverage and a well-documented schema, most of what an agent needs is elsewhere. The remaining gap is knowing whether this is fully equivalent to getSkill and whether it is safe to migrate away from it.

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% and the single 'id' param is documented in-schema with concrete examples ('animation-shimmer', 'auth-cognito'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description never states the verb or resource itself — it only says this is the 'old name of getSkill.' A reader must already know what getSkill does to know that this retrieves a skill/recipe by ID. It does, however, position the tool relative to sibling getSkill, which is more than a bare tautology.

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?

'Kept for existing setups' implicitly routes new callers to getSkill while sanctioning use here for legacy integrations, which is real steering toward the correct sibling. The steer is implied rather than an explicit 'use getSkill instead', and it says nothing about the listRecipes/searchRecipes family.

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