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

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write. The description adds important context beyond that: the program has ended, it is maintained only for compatibility, and no new commission is generated. It does not describe the exact side effect of calling it now, but the deprecation state is the key behavioral fact.

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, front-loaded with the critical status (program ended) before the alternative. Every sentence adds necessary information with no waste.

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For a deprecated tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the essential context: it is obsolete, callable only for compatibility, and an alternative exists. It stops short of describing the return or exact effect of calling it, but for a compatibility stub that is a minor omission.

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 all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 identifies this as an ended reward program kept only for compatibility, which distinguishes it from the active sibling speedbot_earning_opportunities. It does not, however, state what invoking the tool actually does now (e.g., whether it still enrolls with no reward), so the action itself remains slightly underspecified.

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 says no new commission is offered and directs the agent to read speedbot_earning_opportunities for current work and reward availability. This names the alternative and the condition for using it, leaving no ambiguity about when not to use this tool.

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