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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false while destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description never discloses what is actually written or persisted when a routing call mutates state — a notable gap given the non-read-only hint. It does add real value by naming the return payload (System 0/1/2 triage tier, resting potential, plasticity, bound Action Skeleton), which no output schema covers.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by mechanism and return values. It is dense with terminology but not padded; no sentence is redundant.

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 usefully enumerates return values, and it covers the input parameters via the schema. But key terms ('resting potential', 'plasticity', 'Action Skeleton', 'System 0/1/2') are left undefined, and the side effects implied by readOnlyHint=false are unexplained, so an agent would still be guessing at the tool's mechanics.

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%, so both parameters (inquiry, utility) are already documented with types and the utility default of 0.8. The description adds no further semantics about the inquiry string or how the utility threshold affects routing, so baseline 3 applies.

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 does state a verb and resource ('Route an inquiry or task intent through the ... router'), so the basic action is identifiable. However, the resource is described entirely in proprietary jargon ('Catuṣkoṭi K3', 'Kleene 3-valued logic', '64-hexagram macro-actions') that an agent cannot map onto a concrete capability, and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as sutra.cast, sutra.compile, sutra.hexagram, or decision.deliberate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this router over the many adjacent tools in the sibling list (sutra.cast, sutra.compile, mandala.triage, decision.deliberate). The only conditional signal is the parenthetical 'competing action vectors like execute vs dry-run', which hints at a use case but does not state any when/when-not rule.

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