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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds the conditional clause 'when determinable,' indicating that the price may not always be returned. It also states that both a route and price are outputs, which is helpful given there is no output schema. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 definition is a single sentence plus a redundant but harmless 'Read-only.' The core action, target resource, route set, and conditional price output are all packed efficiently and front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition beyond the annotation-consistent read-only label.

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 description specifies the expected outputs and the main precondition, but it does not state what happens if both optional parameters are absent or when determinability fails. Because there is no output schema, the agent is left to guess the edge-case behavior. For a two-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, this is a moderate but notable gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining size_bytes and duration_seconds. It maps them to 'media file size and/or duration' and clarifies that either or both can be supplied, which goes beyond the bare schema names and constraints. It does not specify units or the behavior when neither parameter is provided, but the parameter names already imply bytes and seconds.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'return the correct ForensiScope route' and enumerates all four possible routes, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool produces. It also distinguishes itself from siblings such as get_forensiscope_pricing and prepare_forensiscope_handoff by describing classification as the core purpose.

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 phrase 'Given known media file size and/or duration' clearly states the input condition that triggers use of this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct the agent to get_forensiscope_pricing for pricing-only needs, but the description makes the classification-for-route use case obvious.

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