Euvra

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it usefully discloses that this is a non-executing selection step, which is real behavioral value. However, it says nothing about whether it is read-only, whether it mutates any stored route state, or about rate/cost implications.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, and the non-execution caveat is placed immediately where it matters for tool selection.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and both params are documented, so the description only needs the routing context it provides. Minor gap: it never states that discovery must precede it, which an agent sequencing three sibling tools would want.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters ('query', 'limit') are documented in the schema, so the description adds essentially nothing beyond the natural-language framing of 'for a request'. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('compare') and resource ('discovered providers for a request') plus the outcome ('select the strongest route candidate'). It implicitly separates itself from execute_capability via 'does not execute', though it never names its siblings explicitly.

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?

'Discovered providers' implies discover_capabilities must run first and the exclusion of execution implies a choice against execute_capability, but neither alternative is named or conditioned explicitly. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well for the safety profile: it explicitly states no provider is executed, so the agent knows there are no side effects. It also names what comes back (evidence, operational status, ranking signals), but omits auth requirements or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the key behavioral constraint (no execution) and return shape. No filler.

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 and is rich, so return values need not be spelled out despite the brief mention. For a read-only discovery tool with no annotations, the description covers the critical non-execution guarantee and purpose; only routing guidance versus siblings is thin.

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 100%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the query is natural-language; it adds no syntax, format, or ranking-mechanic detail beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 pairs specific verbs (discover, rank) with a specific resource (machine-accessible capabilities) and scopes input to a natural-language request. It differentiates itself from execute_capability via 'without executing a provider', though the relationship to compare_capabilities is left implicit.

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 implied rather than stated: the 'without executing a provider' clause suggests this is the pre-execution discovery step, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (compare_capabilities, execute_capability) is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add genuinely useful context: re-planning happens server-side and caller-supplied provider IDs, endpoints, or tool names are never trusted, which tells the agent not to attempt to supply them. However it omits whether the executed tool can mutate state, permission requirements, or latency/rate-limit behavior for a tool whose whole job is to run an arbitrary live-discovered tool.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the trust-model caveat following. The second sentence earns its place by preempting a likely caller mistake.

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 described. But for a tool that executes arbitrary live-discovered tools with zero annotations, the safety and side-effect profile is left entirely unstated, leaving the description incomplete on the one dimension that matters most here.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so baseline 3 applies. The description clarifies that the request is natural-language and the route is server-replanned, but adds no detail about how 'arguments' is bound to the provider tool beyond what the schema already states.

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: route a natural-language request and execute the selected live-discovered MCP tool. The verb 'execute' is clearly distinct from sibling names like discover_capabilities and compare_capabilities, though the description never names them directly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance. It implies this is the final step after routing, but never tells the agent that discover_capabilities must precede it or when compare_capabilities is the better call. The agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.

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