zipviz_explain_verification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the tool performs no work and explains the trust rationale (a caller-supplied result cannot be authenticated). That is a substantive behavioral disclosure beyond a mere 'deprecated' tag.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'DEPRECATED and non-functional' so the critical status lands first. Every sentence earns its place, including the rationale.

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?

Nothing an agent needs is missing: status, the fact that calling it is pointless, and the correct redirect to zipviz_verify. No output schema exists to explain, and none is needed for a tombstone 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is optional, so the schema already carries the baseline. The description adds the reason the 'result' argument is meaningless — a caller-supplied result is indistinguishable from an invented one — which meaningfully supplements the schema's terse 'Ignored' note.

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?

Explicitly labels the tool DEPRECATED and non-functional, states that it explains nothing, and names zipviz_verify as the replacement. An agent can immediately distinguish it from every sibling without opening a 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?

Directly instructs the agent to use zipviz_verify instead, giving both the when-not (this tool) and the alternative. No inference is required.

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