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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing cost ("at no charge"), the auth requirement (must supply the order's email), and a hard upstream dependency on check_availability. It does not address the non-idempotent implication (what happens if the same reschedule is retried) or what the response contains, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 deprecation and the preferred alternative are front-loaded, which is exactly the right ordering for a rename stub, followed by the operational sentence. Slightly wordy in the middle ("behaves identically" plus "keeps working" restate the same guarantee), but no sentence is truly wasted.

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 3-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential call path: prerequisite lookup, auth requirement, and cost. The only real gap is the undocumented order_id and the absence of any statement about the tool's response.

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 67%; email and new_slot_id are already documented in the schema and the description adds only the operational framing (email must match the creating order, slot must come from check_availability). order_id remains undocumented in both schema and description, leaving one required parameter without semantics.

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 ("Move a booking to a different slot") and immediately identifies itself as a deprecated alias of reschedule_session with identical behavior. An agent can distinguish it from reschedule_session and update_booking without opening any 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 to prefer reschedule_session for new connections, and mandates calling check_availability first to obtain a valid new_slot_id. Both the alternative and the ordering prerequisite are named rather than implied.

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