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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clarifies this is an informational, zero-side-effect guide and explicitly steers away from data lookup, which is strong behavioral guidance. It stops short of describing the guide's output shape, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary 'start here' instruction, followed by what it returns and a clear exclusion with the alternative. 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema routing tool, the description tells the agent everything needed to invoke it correctly and where to go instead. Slightly more detail on the guide's contents would round it out.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline of 4 applies since no parameter semantics are needed.

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 purpose: it returns a decision guide for partners and admins, and signals via 'Start here' that it is a meta-routing tool rather than a data tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings like RecordUserQuestion and the investigation tools, though it doesn't spell out what the guide actually contains.

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 on when to use ('when unsure which tool to use'), when not to use ('Do NOT use for data lookup'), and the correct alternative path ('call RecordUserQuestion first, then an investigation tool'). This is close to ideal routing guidance.

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