news_list_beats

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 well: it discloses the upstream API is shut down and returns 410 Gone, which tells the agent a call will fail rather than succeed. It stops short of saying whether the tool still throws an error or returns a stub response, which would fully close the loop.

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 notice is front-loaded with a clear marker, and the redirect to legion_status follows immediately. The trailing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is unrelated promotional content that does not help an agent decide anything about this tool, so the description is not fully waste-free.

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-output-schema tool, the description gives everything needed to avoid a wrong call and find the successor. The only residual gap is the exact runtime behavior if invoked anyway (hard error vs. no-op).

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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema (baseline 4). It correctly adds no parameter claims that would need reconciling with the empty input schema.

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 precisely what the tool used to do (list beats via the aibtc.news API) and that it is now dead, which is the only purpose information an agent needs. It does not have to distinguish itself positively from siblings because it explicitly routes away from itself to legion_status.

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 'do not use' instruction plus a named replacement ('use legion_status instead (start with legion_status)'), including the recommended entry point. There is no ambiguity about when to use this versus alternatives.

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