getDeprecatedEndpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the action (lists deprecated endpoints) but adds no further behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. The behavior is straightforward, but the description does not go beyond the tool's name to disclose any subtle traits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the use case. There is no redundant information or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does and why it is useful. It could have mentioned return format, but for a basic list operation, this is not a significant gap. The context is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is implicitly 100% (vacuously), and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, which is appropriate here.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the specific resource 'endpoints marked as deprecated', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like listEndpoints and searchEndpoints. It is unambiguous and uses precise terminology.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Utile pour la planification de migrations' (useful for migration planning). This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For a simple list tool, this contextual guidance is sufficient.

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