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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with concrete behavior ('does not execute, purchase, research live web content') and adds that unsupported requests are labeled explicitly, plus a cost/auth note ('Free, no signup'). It stops short of describing the shape of the returned routing result.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint (scope, exclusions, cost/behavior), with the positive purpose front-loaded. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry return-value meaning; it partially does by stating that unsupported requests are labeled explicitly, implying the response distinguishes supported from unsupported. An agent still does not know the format of a successful routing answer, but nothing critical to invoking it is missing.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'task' parameter, and the description adds no guidance on what the string should contain (goal phrasing, expected length, how to phrase an unsupported request). With only one free-text input, the gap is minor but real.

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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (agent task to existing Penny Engine capabilities), and immediately bounds the scope with 'capabilities only'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are concrete single-purpose calculators/extractors rather than a router.

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?

Gives explicit exclusions ('does not execute, purchase, research live web content, or claim to handle arbitrary tasks') which tell an agent when this tool is the wrong choice. It does not name a specific alternative tool for unsupported cases, so it falls short of the top band.

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