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

Annotations already mark it read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world; the description adds important behavior: deterministic routing, explicit empty-route/unroutable handling, and a special prompt-library pointer even when no platform routes. These are concrete traits beyond the annotations.

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-loads the purpose and first-call guidance, then layers route-vs-transaction, empty-route, determinism, prompt handling, and return shape in a logical order. It is somewhat long, and the final empty-arguments example is a wasted/misleading sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully names return fields (platform_id, label, why_matched, score, entry_points, unroutable) and explains the prompt fallback. It is nearly complete, though the incorrect empty-arguments example leaves a minor invocation gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description explains the intent parameter with several examples and calls it free-text, but does not add meaning for the limit parameter and ends with a misleading 'arguments {}' example despite intent being required.

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?

States a specific verb ('Route') and resource ('natural-language intent to the right platform'), and explicitly positions itself as 'the first thing to call' before acting on a platform. It distinguishes routing from transacting and names next-step tools (appointment_search, federation_prompt_run), so an agent can identify it among siblings.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('first thing to call'), what it returns vs what to do next ('you then act on that platform'), and routes prompt-related intents to introspection_prompt_library/federation_prompt_run. It also specifies the no-match behavior (empty route, unroutable:true) rather than a silent default.

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