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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful transparency by noting that a no-work decision may be produced, that no result is claimed in that case, and that the return is a hash-bound decision receipt. It does not fully disclose side effects or state changes, but the core decision behavior is well conveyed.

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 four concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds constraints, optional behavior, and return value information in a logical order. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 the minimal input schema and absent annotations, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It omits operational details such as how to structure the task object, how to express hard constraints, how baselines are supplied, and what request_id does. The output schema exists, but the input-side gaps remain significant.

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 for explaining task and request_id, but it only partially does so. It mentions task-related concepts like baselines and allow_defer/value/urgency fields, yet it never explains the required task object shape, the valid values for these fields, or the purpose of request_id. The compensation is insufficient for a low-coverage 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: choosing the least-burden eligible route for a task. It also enumerates hard constraints, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like record_route_outcome or compute_efficiency_report.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It describes optional behavior around allow_defer/value/urgency fields, but that is not tool-selection guidance. An agent is left to infer when route_task is the appropriate sibling to call.

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