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

Annotations already declare it as a safe read-only operation with `readOnlyHint=true`, `openWorldHint=false`, and `destructiveHint=false`. The description adds important historical context: it is a legacy alias and returns a different shape than `search`, which helps an agent set expectations, though it does not describe pagination or output details.

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 ending with the routing instruction. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted text.

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 simple two-parameter legacy tool with annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough to avoid misuse by routing users to `search`. It could say more about the differing return shape, but the essential deprecation and alternative are covered.

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?

The description does not mention the `query` or `limit` parameters at all. Schema coverage is only 50% (query is described, limit is not), so the description should compensate but instead adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 is a legacy search function under the former name, that it searches within the site like `search`, and that its return shape differs. This gives a clear verb+resource and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling `search` tool.

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 says the tool is kept for users already connected and that new callers should use `search` instead. This is direct 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.