news_list_editors

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the critical behavior: calls would fail with 410 Gone because the backing API is shut down. That is exactly the operational warning an agent needs, though it does not mention whether the tool errors or returns a stub payload.

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 and replacement are front-loaded in the first two clauses, which is ideal. The trailing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is unrelated to this tool and adds a small amount of noise.

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 an agent needs: don't call it, here's why, here's the replacement.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies no inputs are 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list editors) and immediately marks it as DEPRECATED, plus names the concrete reason (aibtc.news API shut down, 410 Gone) and the successor tool. An agent can tell instantly this is a dead endpoint and what replaced it.

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 ('do not use') and an explicit alternative ('use legion_status instead, start with legion_status'), matching a real sibling in the tool list. Nothing is left to inference.

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