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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, including the abstention behavior and strict data submission constraints (consented, data-minimized, redacted, no secrets). This is valuable context that the annotations do not provide, and there is no contradiction.

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 structured with clear sections, but it contains redundancy: 'Use after evidence completeness' appears in the opening sentence and again in the 'Use when' section. This repetition makes it slightly less concise than necessary.

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 the complexity of the nested schema and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the routing/abstain behavior and data handling constraints, while the output schema covers return values. Minor gaps remain around what constitutes 'missing proof' but this is acceptable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a crucial semantic constraint about the evidence submitted (consented, minimized, redacted, etc.) that is not apparent from the schema alone, elevating it above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to route a structurally complete pack toward licensed MVR scoring or abstain on missing proof. It uses a specific verb ('route') and resource ('structurally complete pack'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it does not compute market, pilot, or scale readiness.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, stating it should be used after evidence completeness and not as readiness, pilot, credit, legal, regulatory, or scale authorization. This clearly positions the tool relative to alternatives.

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