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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool binds the original route, context, and mandate, reserves at most one unpaid checkout, and never grants wallet authority. However, it omits auth requirements, idempotency, failure behavior, and whether the operation mutates state.

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 description is only two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before listing constraints. It is dense but contains no filler, though the compressed jargon makes it harder to parse than necessary.

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 complex route-continuation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It gives safety-related hints but leaves critical operational details, parameter meanings, and return behavior unspecified.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the three required parameters. It does not clarify what task_id identifies, how mandate_id is obtained, or what client_reference is for, leaving the agent dependent on bare schema types and constraints.

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 a specific action and resource: it continues an owned MCP route task using the linked owner's saved mandate. It distinguishes this from starting a new route by emphasizing continuation, though the dense jargon around 'routing scopes,' 'unpaid checkout,' and 'wallet authority' reduces immediate clarity.

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 implies usage for continuing an owned route task and notes that all three routing scopes are required, but it never says when to choose this over siblings like route_work or get_route_task. There are no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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