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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the tool is a deprecated alias and that its return format differs from fetch. It stops short of describing what that format actually 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?

Front-loads the most decision-relevant fact (legacy name, kept for existing users) and closes with the routing advice. Four compact sentences with no filler, though the wording is slightly repetitive about fetch.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full annotation set this is largely adequate, and the deprecation routing is clear. However there is no output schema, and the description says the return shape differs from fetch without explaining how — the one piece of information an agent cannot get elsewhere is missing.

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?

There is a single url parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the useful note that Japanese paths are acceptable. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema carries the burden here.

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 a specific verb+resource (returns the page body, like fetch but in a different shape) and explicitly frames itself as the legacy name of an existing function. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling fetch, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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 it is kept only for already-connected users and that new usage should go to fetch instead — a named alternative plus the condition that selects it. This is exactly the when/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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