t2000_browse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deprecated status and that results are identical to t2000_services, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The alias behavior is helpful but incomplete.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool is deprecated and directs the agent to the preferred alternative. Every word earns its place.

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 simple schema and the explicit deprecation redirect, the description is nearly complete. It lacks any description of the return value or detailed behavior, but since it is a deprecated alias, the main context ('use t2000_services instead') is fully covered.

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 input schema covers both parameters (agent and query) with descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a deprecated alias for t2000_services and notes identical results, but it never states the underlying function (e.g., browsing or listing services). It relies on the sibling tool's name to imply purpose, so the purpose is clear only indirectly.

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 explicitly says to prefer t2000_services instead and notes this tool is deprecated. This is clear when-to-use guidance with a named alternative, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool.

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