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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations lack: the program has ended, no commission is paid, and the tool is retained only for compatibility. It stops short of saying what a call actually returns or whether it errors versus no-ops, which an agent evaluating a still-callable endpoint would want.

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 tight sentences, the deprecation status is front-loaded, and the redirect follows immediately. No wasted text.

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 shim, the description covers everything essential: status, lack of reward, and alternative. The only gap is the actual runtime behavior of a call (error vs silent no-op), which matters slightly given the tool remains callable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents agent_key, payout_address and accept_referral_terms. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 makes clear this is a defunct referral-enrollment tool whose program has ended, and it names the sibling (speedbot_earning_opportunities) that replaces it. The specific verb+resource comes mostly from the name/title, but the deprecation framing lets an agent place it precisely among siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent not to expect value here and redirects to speedbot_earning_opportunities for current work and rewards. This is exactly the when-not-to-use plus named-alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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