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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the useful framing that this is a lookup/dispatch operation returning a domain plus its tools, but says nothing about how recommendations are ranked, how many are returned, or what happens when no domain matches.

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?

It is a single sentence with no redundancy, which is good, but the trailing clause 'the shortest path from a requirement to the right mount point' is marketing framing that restates the purpose rather than adding information. The concrete part (task → domain + tools) is present but not front-loaded as the operative instruction.

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-value detail is not required, and annotations cover the safety semantics. What remains missing is the piece an agent actually needs to choose correctly: how this differs from search_capabilities/list_domains, and whether the result is a single best match or a ranked set.

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 a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'task' field and states it should be free-form ('in your own words'). The description repeats that a task is 'described' by the caller without adding syntax, length, or formatting guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'resolve' and the object ('a task you describe' → 'the domain that answers it, with the tools on it') convey a routing/recommendation function, but the framing is wrapped in undefined jargon ('surface', 'mount point') that the tool name relies on. Nothing distinguishes it from close siblings like search_capabilities or list_domains, which an agent could plausibly pick for the same intent.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Resolve a task you describe' suggests calling it when you have a natural-language requirement rather than a known domain name. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (search_capabilities, describe_capability, list_domains) that overlap with this routing job.

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