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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ranking mechanism (learned edge weight and trust) but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what happens when inputs are missing or invalid. Behavioral context is minimal.

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 a single, compact sentence with the core idea front-loaded and no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's main function and ranking criteria.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, this description is too thin. It fails to explain the role of agent_id, the meaning of limit, the distinction from route_task, or the safety profile. The output schema covers return structure but not the surrounding operational context.

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 must compensate. It only indirectly clarifies from_node via 'from a given node'; agent_id and limit are left entirely to their property names. The description adds little meaning beyond the raw 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 outcome: recommending the strongest next cognitive steps from a given node, ranked by learned edge weight and trust. It is concrete about the resource and selection criteria, though it does not explicitly contrast with routing siblings like route_task.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. With sibling tools like route_task and record_route_outcome, an agent gets no direction on choosing this tool over those alternatives; usage context is only implied by the name and description.

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