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

The key behavioral fact, that the tool is a no-op and runs nothing, is disclosed outright and matches readOnlyHint=true / destructiveHint=false. It does not say what a call actually returns (e.g. an error or an empty stub result), which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the retirement notice, then the redirect. Every clause carries operational information 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 one-parameter retired stub with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to avoid mis-calling it and to route correctly to the successor tool. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single conversation_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about this tool's own parameter, only about the replacement tool's arguments, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 plainly that this tool is retired and runs nothing, then names the exact replacement (well_create_browser_task) with the configuration to use. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like well_enqueue_invoice_fetch or well_preview_invoice_fetch without reading further.

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 (do not call this) and a when-instead, including the concrete executor_type, goal_kind, flow_run_id and counterparty_company_ids to pass to the alternative. No routing inference is left to the agent.

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