news_file_correction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the failure mode (410 Gone, backend shut down) and explains the architectural reason (migration to on-chain governance). This is exactly the runtime behavior an agent needs to avoid a wasted, guaranteed-failing call.

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 a visual marker, followed by cause and then the redirect, which is the right order. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is unrelated to filing corrections and is the one sentence that does not earn its place in this definition.

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 stub with no output schema, the description covers everything relevant: status, cause, failure code, and successor tools. Nothing an agent needs in order to make the right call 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 schema has zero parameters (empty object, 100% coverage), so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and its silence is consistent with the fact that the tool takes no input.

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 names the exact former behavior (filing a correction via the aibtc.news API) and immediately qualifies it with 'DEPRECATED — do not use', so there is no ambiguity about the tool's current status. It also names the replacement (legion_vote) and its entry point (legion_status), which distinguishes it from every news_* sibling.

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 states when not to use it ('⛔ DEPRECATED — do not use') and gives a concrete substitute path: legion_vote, starting with legion_status. An agent reading this knows exactly what to do instead of calling this tool.

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