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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real value by stating the tool is deterministic and returns the path plus the next view, which tells the agent the call is safe to repeat and yields navigational state rather than free text.

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-loaded with purpose and behavioral traits, then the decision-relevant situation list. The dense inline enumeration is efficient, though slightly hard to scan and the trailing situation list could be formatted more readably.

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?

With an output schema present, the return value needn't be spelled out in detail, and a single enum parameter is fully covered. The only real omission is routing guidance relative to the three sibling choose_*_path tools.

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 0% and the single enum parameter's tokens are terse slugs, so the description carries the burden. It does so well by glossing each value in plain language (e.g. 'protect-for-family' = holds Bitcoin and wants family to recover it), which materially helps enum selection beyond the schema.

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 and resource: it 'routes a visitor to the right starting point from their situation.' The four enumerated situations make the routing domain concrete. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools choose_retirement_path, choose_security_path, and choose_us_path, which are near-identical routing tools.

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 situation list implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies (a visitor describing one of four situations), but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the choose_*_path siblings that would let the agent pick the correct router. Usage must be inferred.

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