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

Annotations indicate a non-destructive, idempotent write operation, and the description adds important context that the reward program has ended and no new reward is offered. It does not specify the exact response or error behavior when invoked, but the deprecation status is clearly disclosed.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words, and the deprecation status is front-loaded before the recommendation. Every sentence 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?

For a deprecated compatibility tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description sufficiently redirects the agent to the relevant alternative and states the lack of reward. It does not explain what happens if the tool is still called with required parameters, but the main cautionary context is present.

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 schema has 8 parameters with only 13% description coverage (only agent_key is documented), and the description adds no guidance on the required category, operator_url, recurring_use_case, original_service, accept_bonus_terms, or service_id fields. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 tool's current status: the reward program has ended and it is kept callable only for compatibility with no new reward. It distinguishes this tool from the active alternative by naming speedbot_earning_opportunities, though it does not explain the original claim action.

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 directs the agent to speedbot_earning_opportunities for current availability, providing a clear alternative and implying this tool should not be used for new rewards. It does not explicitly say 'do not call' but the when-not condition is strongly implied.

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