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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured information: that this tool is a deprecated alias with an identical-purpose replacement, which affects whether an agent should call it at all. It omits whether behavior is byte-identical to searchSkills (same params, same results), which would be the final piece.

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 sentence, zero padding, and the most decision-relevant fact (it is the old name of another tool) is front-loaded. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose.

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-parameter read-only search alias this is close to enough, but it leaves open whether the alias behaves identically to searchSkills and whether its query syntax matches. With annotations and a complete schema the gap is modest, so a 3 rather than lower.

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 query parameter is documented with examples, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, which is the baseline expectation for a fully documented single-param tool.

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+resource directly; it only says this is the 'old name of searchSkills', so the agent must infer that it searches skills by analogy with the sibling. That inference is easy given the name and sibling list, but it is still inference rather than an explicit statement of what the tool does.

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' implies this is a legacy alias and hints that new callers should use searchSkills, but it never explicitly says 'prefer searchSkills' or states when this alias is still the right choice. The routing signal is present but implied rather than stated.

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