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

Annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful legacy/alias context and mentions that the return format differs from 'search', but it does not explain how the return format differs or what the response actually looks like, which is a notable gap.

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?

The description is compact and every sentence earns its place. It is slightly redundant with the title by repeating the 'previous name' context, but overall it is well-structured and quickly conveys the deprecation and routing guidance.

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 tool, the description is nearly sufficient, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, because there is no output schema and the description says only that the return shape differs without specifying it, an agent invoking this tool would remain uncertain about the actual response format.

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 schema covers 'query' with an example but leaves 'limit' without a semantic description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 50% schema coverage gap is not compensated for.

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 clearly states that the tool searches inside the site, and it explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool 'search' by noting that the search behavior is the same but the returned shape differs. It also identifies itself as the legacy/previous-name version, so an agent can understand what this tool is and how it relates to its sibling.

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: this version is kept for users who are already connected, and new usage should go to 'search'. This is a clear when/when-not statement with a named alternative, so an agent knows exactly which tool to pick.

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