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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool does not execute tasks or establish actual savings, which is a key limitation. It also states the input limits. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, or whether it requires external data access beyond inspecting a schema. The transparency is partial but not comprehensive.

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 concise at three sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. It includes essential constraints and a prerequisite without fluff. It could be slightly clearer on the parameters, but overall it is well-structured 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?

Given the tool has two complex array parameters with no schema documentation and an output schema (not shown), the description provides enough context to understand the tool's high-level function and constraints. However, it lacks detail on the expected structure of the objects in the profiles and tasks arrays, which is critical for an agent to construct valid input. The output schema may fill that gap, but the description alone is not fully sufficient for a correct invocation.

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 the lack of parameter documentation. It hints that 'declared costs' relate to profiles and 'representative evaluation counts' relate to tasks, but it never explicitly maps these to the 'profiles' and 'tasks' parameters. It provides limits (20 profiles, 50 task groups) but not the structure or required fields of the objects inside the arrays. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema, which is just two untyped arrays.

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 the tool produces a workload routing plan based on declared costs and evaluation counts. It also specifies limits (20 profiles, 50 task groups), which clarifies scope. However, the phrasing '$1 workload routing plan' is slightly ambiguous and doesn't explicitly state a verb like 'creates' or 'generates', but the intent is clear enough. It distinguishes from the sibling tool (describe_agent) by describing a planning function.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Inspect the public service schema and a free unpaid quote first') and what the tool does not do ('Does not execute tasks or establish actual savings'). This gives some guidance on when to use it (e.g., before executing tasks) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this when' conditions. The sibling tool is not referenced, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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