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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the return shape differs from 'search' and that this is a deprecated alias, but it does not say how the return format differs or note the limit cap.

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 with the legacy/deprecation status front-loaded, followed by the behavioral note and the redirection to 'search'. Efficient and well-ordered, though slightly repetitive in restating the 'former name' framing via the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and here it only says the return format 'is different' without explaining it - which is precisely the information an agent needs to choose between this and 'search'. The tool's core distinction is left unspecified.

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 only 50%: 'query' is documented with an example, but 'limit' has no description at all. The description provides no parameter guidance whatsoever, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter or its 1-20 range.

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 states this searches within the site, identifies it as a legacy alias of the 'Esprit Delasse' feature, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search' by noting the different return format. The purpose is clear, though the actual behavior is deferred to 'same as search' rather than described directly.

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?

It gives an explicit condition for use ('kept for those who are already connected'), names the alternative ('search'), and states the directive 'when using it newly, use search'. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both spelled out with the alternative tool.

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