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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds substantive context beyond that: it lists hard constraints, notes optional baselines, warns that allow_defer/value/urgency can yield a no-work decision with no claimed result, and says a hash-bound receipt is returned. It does not contradict 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?

Four front-loaded sentences with little waste; each adds purpose, constraints, no-work behavior, or return behavior. The long constraint list and jargon make it dense, but it is not padded.

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 complex (routing over many constraints, nested task object, output schema) and annotations/output schema cover safety and returns. However, the description omits sibling usage guidance and parameter structure for the opaque task object, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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% and the required task parameter is an opaque nested object. The description partially compensates by naming constraint dimensions and optional fields (allow_defer/value/urgency), but it never maps them to task properties or explains request_id, leaving invocation structure under-specified.

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 gives a clear verb ('Choose') and resource ('route for a task'), and specifies the optimization goal ('least-burden eligible') plus hard constraints. It does not name or contrast sibling tools such as best_next_steps or record_route_outcome, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The no-work decision and optional baselines are behavioral details, not routing guidance, so an agent must infer usage from the purpose sentence.

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