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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'canonical public URL' usefully implies a stable, read-only, deterministic lookup. It does not say what happens for an unrecognized goal, whether the URL is localized, or whether it is absolute vs relative.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately terse, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for the ambiguity in its enum.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it omits error behavior, URL format, and enum value meanings. For a lookup tool with 13 opaque enum values this leaves real gaps.

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 0%, and the enum includes opaque members such as 'become_va', 'team_os', and 'scout' that an agent cannot infer. The description only restates the parameter as 'goal' without mapping any value to a destination, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb (Return) and resource (canonical public URL) that clarifies the ambiguous tool name 'recommend_path'. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like get_pricing or get_signup_link, which also appear to return links.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_pricing, get_signup_link, or list_services, all of which overlap on routing users to URLs. The word 'known' hints at a precondition but is never defined.

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