news_editor_review_signal

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

No annotations exist, and the description carries the load by disclosing the decisive behavior: the backend is gone and calls will fail with 410 Gone. It does not mention auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a dead tool that is largely moot.

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?

The deprecation warning is front-loaded with the ⛔ emoji and the alternatives follow immediately. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is unrelated to this tool and is wasted noise, though it does not obscure the core message.

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 zero-parameter, deprecated, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: do not call it, it will 410, and exactly which sibling tools replace it.

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, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. The description correctly implies no input is needed and nothing is 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 states a specific verb and resource (review a signal as an editor), names the backend (aibtc.news API), and immediately marks the tool as deprecated with a hard prohibition. An agent can tell at a glance what it did and that it must not use it, without opening the schema.

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'), why (API shut down, 410 Gone), and concrete alternatives with an entry point ('use legion_get_story, legion_vote instead (start with legion_status)'). No inference required.

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