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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is a legacy/compatibility tool and its return shape differs from `search`, though it does not specify what that shape is.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with legacy status, then behavior, then the recommendation to use `search`. There is little waste, though the title and description repeat the old-name framing.

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 legacy tool with no output schema, the description notes that the return shape differs from `search` but never describes what it actually returns. That is enough to steer new callers away, but incomplete for existing callers who still need to invoke it correctly.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not explain how `query` should be formed or what `limit` controls, leaving the undocumented `limit` parameter to rely solely on its schema constraints.

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?

States that it searches within the site, that it is the legacy name of a feature, and that its return shape differs from `search`. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling `search`, though it does not explicitly say it returns pages.

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?

Explicitly says to use `search` for new usage and that this tool is kept only for people already connected to it. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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