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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the plan is deterministic, names concrete live tools where possible, and that V1 plans and connects but does not proxy protected vertical calls. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or return format, so it stops short of 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?

The description is compact at four sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence adds a distinct constraint, though terms like 'LENS' and 'V1' are somewhat cryptic without additional context.

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 that there is no output schema and one parameter is undocumented, the description does not tell the agent what the returned plan/route looks like or what max_domains semantically affects. It covers purpose and a key limitation, but an agent would still be guessing about output shape and parameter impact.

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?

Only 'goal' has a schema description; 'max_domains' is entirely undocumented in the schema. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond rephrasing 'complex intelligence goal' and does not explain what max_domains controls or how it shapes the route.

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 opens with a specific verb–resource pair, 'Plan a source-authority route,' and clarifies the tool is for complex intelligence goals. It also distinguishes itself from sibling discovery/inspection tools by emphasizing that it names concrete live tools and does not proxy protected vertical calls.

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 gives clear context: use it for a 'complex intelligence goal' and when 'several specialized domains are useful,' it recommends LENS as the cross-domain layer. It also states a capability boundary, 'does not proxy protected vertical calls,' but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or when-not conditions.

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