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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context: this is a stale backward-compatibility alias whose return shape differs from `search` — though it stops short of describing 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 tight sentences with the deprecation status front-loaded, which is the most decision-relevant fact. No filler, though the phrasing is somewhat circuitous about what the tool itself returns.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description's key claim — the return format differs from `search` — is left unexplained, which is the one thing an agent would need to use this tool correctly. The steering to `search` mitigates the risk, but the completeness gap remains.

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 50%: `query` has an example and `limit` has full structural constraints (default 5, min 1, max 20) even without prose. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema largely carries the load, making the silence a minor gap.

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 the verb+resource ('search the site like search does') and explicitly marks it as the legacy former-name feature, which separates it from the sibling `search`. It is clear, though its self-description leans on comparing itself to `search` rather than fully describing its own resource scope.

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 explicitly states the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'When using it newly, please use search' and 'kept for those who already connected.' An agent knows exactly when to prefer `search` over this tool.

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