Alias cũ của cloud_prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful deprecation/aliasing context that annotations cannot express, but says nothing about whether the alias is behaviorally identical, still maintained, or subject to removal, so it only partially earns credit above the annotation baseline.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loading the alias relationship and ending with the actionable routing instruction. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

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 zero-param, zero-output-schema alias whose annotations already establish the read-only safety profile, the description covers the essentials: what it is and where to go instead. Only a note on whether the alias remains permanently supported would make it fully complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: no parameter semantics need explaining, and the description correctly doesn't invent any. It makes no misleading claims about inputs.

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 states the tool is a compatibility alias and names its canonical counterpart cloud_prices, which lets an agent place it precisely against the many cloud_*/vibecloud_* siblings. It doesn't restate the underlying resource (pricing) directly, but the deprecation-alias framing is unambiguous.

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 explicitly routes new integrations to cloud_prices, giving a clear alternative and an implied when-not-to-use. It stops short of stating the positive condition (e.g. 'only for existing legacy callers'), so the 'when to use this one' half is left to inference.

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