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 genuinely useful context the annotations do not: that this is a deprecated backward-compatibility alias whose output format differs from `search`.

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 the legacy status and the redirection to `search`. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter legacy search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, deprecation and the alternative. An agent would know to prefer `search`; the only outstanding gap is what the differing return shape actually looks like.

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 50%: `query` is documented with an example while `limit` (min 1, max 20, default 5) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

States clearly that this is the former name of the site-search feature and that it searches the site like `search` but returns results in a different shape. The differentiation from the sibling `search` is explicit, though 'different shape' is left somewhat vague.

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 tells the agent when NOT to use it ('use `search` when using it newly') and why it still exists (kept for those already connected). Nothing is left to inference for a legacy alias.

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