news_file_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses deprecation, the specific 410 Gone failure, API shutdown, and successor tools. An agent knows exactly why and how not to invoke it.

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 a concise explanation, migration path, and a relevant earning hint. Every sentence serves either to prevent misuse or redirect the agent.

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, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: full deprecation rationale, replacement tools, and a starting point. Nothing required for correct behavior 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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful concern. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but baseline 4 reflects that no parameter explanation is needed.

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 immediately states the tool is deprecated and no longer usable, then explains it used to file signals via the now-defunct aibtc.news API. It also names the exact replacement tools, making its purpose and status unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says 'do not use' and provides a concrete migration path: use legion_inscribe_story, legion_inscribe_reveal, or legion_propose_story, starting with legion_status. This is unambiguous when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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