List Deprecations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by scoping the list to organization-wide deprecations and specifying the returned data (phase, sunset date, days remaining). It also notes the requirement for organization context, which is helpful beyond the annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a clear use-case statement and a practical prerequisite. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple read-only list with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is listed, what fields are returned, when to use it, and a key prerequisite. It could go slightly further by mentioning whether results include pagination or ordering, but given the tool's simplicity this is adequate.

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, and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description's note that it 'Requires organization context' adds relevant usage context, satisfying the baseline for a parameter-free tool.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('everything currently deprecated across the organization'), and narrows that resource to endpoints and published versions. It also states the output fields (phase, sunset date, days left), making the tool's purpose unmistakable even among many sibling list tools.

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 frames this as 'The starting point for what do I have to migrate off', giving clear situational guidance for when to use it. It does not explicitly contrast it with related sibling tools like get_deprecation_policy or get_deprecation_plan, so some exclusion guidance is missing.

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