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

Annotations only supply generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) that give no insight into a retired endpoint. The description adds the critical behavior: the call is effectively a no-op that answers RETIRED, plus where the real handoff lives. It stops just short of saying whether the response is a success envelope or an error, 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?

Three short sentences: retirement status first, then the behavioral consequence, then the redirect. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is padded.

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 retired tool with no output schema, this covers everything: it is retired, what calling it yields, why (no contact details collected), and the correct next step including that the handoff page is the provider's own authenticated surface. No gap remains that would change agent behavior.

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 description correctly offers none, consistent with a retired stub. Baseline for a no-parameter schema applies, and nothing is left ambiguous about inputs.

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 makes unmistakably clear that this tool is a tombstone: retired on a specific date, collecting no contact details, and returning a RETIRED marker. It distinguishes itself from all siblings by declaring itself non-functional and pointing at route_intent's handoff_url as the real path. It does not state what the tool once did, but that is irrelevant for a retired stub.

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 when-not ('collects no contact details for introductions', calls answer RETIRED) and names the exact alternative workflow: after route_intent, follow the chosen route's handoff_url to the provider's own sign-in or account page. An agent has no reason to invoke this tool and knows precisely what to do instead.

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