check_deprecated_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool contrasts code/patterns with current web state; it does not explain how results are presented, whether sources are returned, what 'certeza' means operationally, or any limitations. This is thin but not misleading.

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 concise: two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. It avoids irrelevant details, though the second sentence partially repeats what the parameter schema already documents.

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 single-parameter tool with a well-documented schema, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks output expectations and sibling-tool routing, and it does not clarify what kind of response the agent should expect (e.g., structured findings, links, confidence levels).

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 for the single parameter is 100%, with a detailed description and example already present. The tool description reinforces the CPQO format and mentions including stack/snippet/pattern and the type of certainty needed, which is helpful but adds little beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('contrastar') and resource ('código o patrones con estado actual en la web'), making clear this tool checks code/patterns against current web state for deprecation-related facts. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_documentation or search, but the deprecation/replacement/migration focus is enough to identify its purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to check for replacements, deprecation dates, or migration guidance. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools are better suited for general web searches or documentation lookups.

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