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

The description states 'This tool never performs writes,' which is consistent with the annotations readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It goes beyond the annotations by characterizing the nature of responses (concise, advisory) and noting it covers 'ambiguous action requests,' which implies it may return a route plan rather than executing actions. This adds value beyond the structured data without contradicting it.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with useful information. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with use cases and sibling differentiations. No filler or redundant phrasing; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's advisory nature, the description is sufficient: it clarifies read-only behavior, specifies use cases, and points to siblings. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, it could briefly mention that the 'request' parameter should be a natural-language prompt or a specific format expectation, but the 'advisory' framing implies this. For a simple tool with clear annotations and output schema, this is nearly complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. While it doesn't detail each parameter, it conveys the overall intent: 'request' is the main prompt, 'response_format' determines output type (answer, route_plan, json), and 'context' provides optional scoping. The description's use of 'advisory route plan' implies that response_format='route_plan' is for guidance. However, it could be more explicit about how 'context' parameters are used, but the high-level purpose is clear.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to 'Ask PodMule for a concise read-only domain answer or an advisory route plan.' It lists specific use cases (quick questions, summaries, diagnostics, drafting, advisory prompts) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not perform writes, unlike execute. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this for quick questions, summaries, diagnostics, drafting, "what should I do?" prompts, and ambiguous action requests.' It also gives exclusions: 'For exact capability contracts use search; for one selected action (read or write) use execute.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives and includes what not to use it for.

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