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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully states that the tool records a claim for re-verification and cannot issue a resolved receipt, which is important side-effect information beyond the schema. It does not detail error cases or exact response content, but the core behavioral caveat is present.

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?

Two densely informative sentences: the first establishes deprecation and compatibility constraints, the second states behavior and routes to the successor. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, key limitation, and migration path. The phrase 'exact result copy as before' is slightly opaque since no output schema exists, but as a deprecated alias aimed at existing clients this is an acceptable minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description references slug and worked but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states the action ('report whether a fix held') with the required inputs (slug and worked) and clearly identifies itself as a deprecated compatibility alias. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling knowbase_complete_resolution because it positions itself as the legacy path.

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 existing clients may continue using it, while new integrations should use knowbase_complete_resolution with the structured ids and verification criteria returned by knowbase_diagnose. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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