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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so safety needs no restating. The description's added value is the deprecation/alias fact, which is genuinely useful behavior context. It does not confirm that results are identical to listSkills or flag any deprecation warning, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

A single short fragment with zero filler; the most decision-relevant fact (it is the old name of listSkills) is front-loaded. It reads as a note rather than a tool statement, 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 one-optional-param read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the bar is low, and identifying it as a legacy alias covers the key decision. Still missing is whether the alias returns identical results to listSkills or carries any deprecation caveat, which matters when choosing between the two.

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%; the single 'category' parameter has an enum and its own description with default 'all'. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

The description defines the tool only indirectly, as 'the old name of listSkills'. It never states in its own terms that it lists recipes/skills or what a 'recipe' is, so an agent must open listSkills or infer the resource. The sibling reference does anchor the operation, which is enough for minimum viability but not a self-standing purpose statement.

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' is a clear legacy/back-compat signal and it names the sibling that supersedes it (listSkills), which routes the agent effectively. It stops short of an explicit 'prefer listSkills for new work' instruction or any statement about when this alias will be removed.

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