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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: the underlying program is terminated, the tool is retained only for backward compatibility, and it will not produce new rewards. It stops short of saying whether the call errors or returns empty, which would be the last useful detail.

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?

Two short sentences, with the critical fact (program ended, no reward) front-loaded before the redirect to the alternative. Every clause 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide not to use this tool. Only the exact call outcome (error vs. empty response) is unspecified, a minor gap for a compatibility stub.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly spends no words on parameters.

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 resource (the dot bonus reward program) and states its current status precisely: the program has ended and the tool exists only for compatibility. It does not describe what a caller would actually receive if invoked, but for a deprecated no-op tool the operative purpose (do not call for rewards) is unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit when-not ('no new reward is offered', program ended) and names the exact alternative to use instead ('Read speedbot_earning_opportunities for current availability'). No inference is required to route correctly among the many speedbot_* siblings.

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