news_check_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it discloses the root cause (aibtc.news API shut down, returns 410 Gone), which tells the agent any invocation will fail rather than return stale data. It also explains the architectural shift to on-chain governance, which is exactly the context needed to avoid retrying this tool.

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 the deprecation warning front-loaded in the first two words, which is the correct priority for a tool that must not be called. The closing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is slightly tangential to the deprecation message but still routes an agent whose goal was yield/signals.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this is exactly the complete set of information an agent needs: don't call it, here's why, here's what to call instead. Nothing is missing.

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 and the schema is an empty object at 100% coverage, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on parameter semantics.

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 states unambiguously that this tool is deprecated and explains what it used to do (check a correspondent's signals and earnings via aibtc.news). It also names the successor tools (legion_my_position, with legion_status as a starting point), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from the legion_* and news_* 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?

Explicit when-not-to-use ('⛔ DEPRECATED — do not use') plus two concrete alternatives and an ordering hint ('start with legion_status'). It also points to earning_opportunities for the underlying intent, leaving nothing to inference.

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