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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: it identifies the product area, the entitlement, and a rate limit (3 free calls/day), which helps an agent anticipate access constraints.

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 and front-loads the action. The bracketed entitlement metadata is useful but slightly redundant with the later entitlement mention, preventing a perfect score.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the core action plus entitlement and rate limits. However, it does not clarify what a 'capability/pipeline coordinate' looks like, how routing differs from similar tools, or what the agent should expect back.

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 single parameter is already fully documented. The description only restates that the intent is natural-language and routes to a coordinate, adding no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (Route) and resource (natural-language intent to a deterministic capability/pipeline coordinate), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like agents_intent_classify or inference, which prevents a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agents_intent_classify or inference. The rate-limit and entitlement note is a constraint, not a usage guideline, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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