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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool selects the smallest suitable tool and profile, which is a behavioral trait beyond 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the verb and resource, the second gives usage context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool is a router with one parameter, and the description covers its purpose and usage context. However, the lack of parameter explanation leaves a gap. The output schema exists but is not described, though the rule says description need not explain return values. Overall adequate but missing parameter detail.

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?

The single parameter 'goal' has an enum of 9 values, but the description provides no explanation of what each value represents or how to choose. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate and add meaning beyond the enum names.

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 routes a pneumatic-air question to the smallest suitable CompatAir tool and profile. It explicitly says to use when the next action is unclear, distinguishing it from sibling tools that are specific actions.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the next action is unclear'), providing clear context. It implies that if the appropriate tool is known, one should use that directly, effectively guiding the agent.

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