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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the actual decision outputs (READY, BLOCKED_HOLD, NO_OWNED_MATCH), the concept of first-party rule resolution, and the strict-route no-silent-fallback policy. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, not a restatement.

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 filler. The most actionable trigger ('Use this before selecting...') is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs in output semantics and a policy constraint without redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent routing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: when to use it, what it does, what it returns, and a key policy constraint. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already defines 'intent' as 'Plain-language web task the user or agent needs completed.' The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it correctly sits at the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb ('route/resolves against') and resource ('Evercraft Web first-party rules'), and states the concrete output: preferred capability plus READY, BLOCKED_HOLD, or NO_OWNED_MATCH. It clearly differentiates itself from fetch/inspect/capability siblings by being the pre-selection routing step.

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?

It opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use this before selecting a web-search, URL-fetch, browser-automation, ... provider.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it, and the FIRST_PARTY_STRICT sentence adds a behavioral exclusion rule about silent fallback. No ambiguity remains about its place relative to alternatives.

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