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

The description adds domain-specific behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by clarifying that the tool plans but does not automatically spend. This is useful for an agent deciding whether this tool has financial side effects, even though the annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive profile.

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 very concise, front-loads the core action, and every word adds value. It wastes no space, though it could have used its brevity more effectively by covering parameter semantics or alternative tool usage.

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 five parameters with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and many closely related sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It does not describe expected return values, how mode/currency/capability/budget affect routing, or when to choose this tool over an alternative.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain the parameters but only mentions 'goal'. The tool has five parameters, including mode, currency, capability, and budget_cents, none of which are described or mapped in the description. This leaves substantial ambiguity for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Route') and identifies both the resource ('a goal') and the target ('best available suppliers'). It also distinguishes itself from execution-type tools by adding 'Planning only; no automatic spend', though it does not name an alternative sibling.

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 phrase 'Planning only; no automatic spend' provides a clear exclusion and implies this tool is for preparing a route rather than committing funds. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related siblings like execute_goal, route_economy, or procure_outcome.

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