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

The description discloses that this is an old v1 version and should be replaced by the park tool, which is useful deprecation context. The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. No additional behavioral details such as side effects, errors, or return values are given, but there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 two short, direct sentences with no filler. It front-loads the deprecation status and immediately redirects to the correct tool, which is appropriately minimal for a legacy alias.

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 deprecated alias, the description is almost complete: the agent is correctly steered away from this tool and toward the current park tool. Parameter semantics and detailed behavior are absent, but because the tool is explicitly superseded, the missing depth is less harmful than it would be for an active tool.

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 0% and the description offers no guidance on note, category, provider, monthly_cap_usd, or min_discount_pct. With five undocumented parameters, the description needed to compensate for the schema's silence, and it does not.

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 title identifies the tool as 'Park a standing order (old name)' and the description labels it as 'the old v1 park', so an agent can recognize it as a legacy variant of the park tool. It does not explain what parking means, but it clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by pointing to the modern park 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?

'Use the park tool instead' is explicit, unambiguous guidance that tells the agent not to select this deprecated tool and names the correct alternative. This is stronger than most usage guidance because it both excludes this tool and routes to the right sibling.

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