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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the program has ended, the endpoint is kept only for compatibility, and calling it yields no reward. That is the key behavioral disclosure for a legacy endpoint; only the exact return shape is unstated.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the deprecation notice before the redirect. 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 no-parameter, no-output, deprecated compatibility shim, the description supplies everything needed: status, why it still exists, and where to go instead. Nothing material is omitted.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter detail is needed or missing.

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 reward-program endpoint and immediately declares it deprecated, which is the essential fact an agent needs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming speedbot_earning_opportunities as the live alternative, though it never states what the call actually did (claim a market service task reward), leaving the resource slightly implicit.

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-to-use ('no new reward is offered') and an explicit alternative ('Read speedbot_earning_opportunities for current availability'). Nothing is left to inference about routing.

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