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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the exact-vs-heuristic boundary at 13 points, the fact that a Held-Karp search must complete for exactness, and that roads/traffic are out of scope. It stops short of noting timeout behavior or what a 'stop reason' can be.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the core operation, the exactness caveat, and the scope exclusion are all front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out (though the description helpfully mentions legs and stop reasons). The gap is on the input side: two of four parameters are undefined in both schema and description, which for a solver tool with hard limits leaves the agent guessing on timeout and loop-closure 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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it partially does: 'planar or spherical kilometre distances' maps to the metric enum, and '2-256 points from index 0' covers the points array and origin. However, time_budget_ms and return_to_start are never explained anywhere, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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+resource: ordering a set of points into a route by planar or spherical kilometre distance. Clear enough that an agent knows this is the TSP-style route sequencing tool, though it never names or contrasts with siblings like forge_route_policy or run_route_policy.

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?

The description explains exactness limits (Held-Karp only up to 13 points) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over route-related siblings such as forge_route_policy or run_route_policy, nor any preconditions for calling it.

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