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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds concrete no-side-effect guarantees: rights remain attached and no identity, score, or eligibility changes occur. It also hints at metadata behavior tied to the limit parameter. No contradiction with annotations.

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: three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and no filler. The final sentence adds useful behavioral guarantees that justify its place, though the jargon-heavy source names make it slightly less accessible.

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?

The description is adequate for a read-only, idempotent multi-source lookup: it names the sources, states key side-effect guarantees, and references the limit parameter. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the result shape, and it leaves topic/offset semantics largely implicit, so an agent must infer some details.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It only addresses 'limit' ('Set limit for full metadata'), leaving 'topic' and 'offset' unexplained. The topic enum values are somewhat self-descriptive, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 names a specific action, 'Route to', applied to four concrete data sources: Palimpsest sources, Seiche funding, Undertow exit liquidity, and NarcoScope data. This differentiates it from sibling research tools even though the exact operation ('route') remains slightly vague.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like universe_search or evidence_*. No alternatives, exclusions, or conditions are mentioned, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and source list.

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