news_record_editor_payout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that the backing API returns 410 Gone and that the domain has migrated to on-chain governance. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a dead endpoint that is irrelevant.

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?

Front-loaded with the ⛔ marker and DEPRECATED, then reason, then redirect, which is the right order. The trailing tip pointing at earning_opportunities is unrelated to this tool and slightly dilutes focus.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says everything required: don't call it, why not, and what to call instead. Nothing an agent needs 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 takes zero parameters and the schema declares an empty object, so there is nothing to document. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter semantics are needed or 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 first clause states the exact resource and action ('record an editor payout via the aibtc.news API') and immediately marks the tool as non-functional. An agent knows within one line that this is a retired tool, not a callable operation.

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?

Gives an explicit prohibition ('do not use'), the reason (API shut down, 410 Gone), and two concrete alternatives in correct order: legion_conclude, starting with legion_status. This is exactly the routing an agent needs.

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