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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, i.e. a potentially mutating operation, while the description flatly states 'It files nothing' and 'Kept so an older conversation that reaches it is told where to go'. Those two signals conflict about whether invoking this tool has side effects, which is the annotation-contradiction case. Although the description's advice is the correct/helpful one, the structured and unstructured data disagree about the write behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the retirement and prohibition, then the routing targets, then the reassurance that it files nothing. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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 retired tombstone tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: status, prohibition, successor tools, and the fact that invoking it accomplishes nothing. No return-value explanation is required.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (locale, answers, quote_id, answers_so_far) is documented in the schema itself — including that answers_so_far is ignored. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies for a schema that does the heavy lifting.

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 very first word, 'Retired. Do not call it:', states the tool's status and its effective behavior ('It files nothing'), and the description names the replacements (answer_carrier_questions, get_quote) so an agent can route without opening any sibling schema. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does or does not do.

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 gives an explicit prohibition ('Do not call it') plus the exact alternatives to use instead and what each carries ('answer_carrier_questions files the one pass for every carrier', 'get_quote carries the firm prices'). It also explains why it still exists — to redirect older conversations that reach it — which is precisely the when/when-not guidance the rubric asks for.

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