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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses an auth requirement ('Needs a product API key') and that behavior matches the successor's validator list, but says nothing about side effects, return values, or cost of invocation.

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?

Three terse fragments with the deprecation warning front-loaded and zero filler. It could be marginally fuller sentences, 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 deprecated redirect the essentials are present: where to go instead and the API-key requirement. But with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required taskId plus nested payload, an agent still lacks enough to invoke it correctly if it ever must.

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 coverage is 0%, so all three parameters depend on the description. It covers only apiKey ('Needs a product API key'); taskId and the nested payload object — the one required input — are left entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 what the tool actually does — 'consensus' and 'server validator list' are referenced but not explained. Its clearest signal is the deprecation redirect to veya_run_consensus, which does distinguish it from that sibling, but the core verb+resource is only inferable from the tool name.

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?

'Deprecated: use veya_run_consensus' is an explicit, unambiguous alternative with an implied when-not-to-use condition. It stops short of saying whether any scenario still warrants this legacy tool, but for a deprecation stub the routing guidance is strong.

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