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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the deprecation/alias status and that write mode is disabled product-side, which implies a read-only operation. It says nothing about authentication needs, result format, or whether behavior is identical to workspace.rag_query.

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-alias fact and followed by routing and the write exclusion. No padding, though the parenthetical 'or REST capabilities[]' is dense shorthand that adds little for an agent calling this MCP tool.

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 legacy alias it covers the essentials: what it replaces, why to prefer the alternative, and which mode is blocked. It falls short on how query scoping (doc_scope) works and whether results are equivalent to workspace.rag_query, which matters for a tool with four mostly undocumented parameters.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description should compensate, but it only restates the agent_type values and write rejection already present in the schema's parameter description. query and doc_scope receive no explanation in either the description or the schema, leaving the most important search parameters undocumented.

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 never states the operation directly; it defines the tool only by reference ("Legacy alias for workspace.rag_query"). The agent must already know what rag_query does to understand this tool. It does, however, clearly distinguish itself from the sibling rag_query by flagging its legacy/alias status.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: prefer agent_type rag|search|chat (or REST capabilities[]) and warns that agent_type=write is rejected. The negative case (write_mode_disabled) is stated as a hard constraint. It is slightly ambiguous whether 'Prefer agent_type rag|search|chat' means set that parameter here or call the sibling rag_query instead.

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