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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, externally-branching operation. The description adds the eligibility/ineligibility condition for routing but says nothing about what routing does to task state, whether it blocks, or how failures surface.

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 that are fully front-loaded: the positive condition first, the exclusion and the alternative second. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 routing contract for a 4-parameter delegation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage is only half specified — the description never explains the capability-matching input or what the caller gets back, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct call from the description alone.

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% across four parameters (title, capability, priority, body), and the description never mentions any of them. In particular the semantics of 'capability' — the field that determines which agent is eligible — and the value range of 'priority' are left entirely undocumented.

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') and resource ('AgentMesh-native agent') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling ask_agentmesh, so an agent can separate delegation from discovery without opening either schema.

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 gives both sides of the routing decision: use this when delegation to an AgentMesh agent is already intended, and do not use it for capability discovery — naming ask_agentmesh as the alternative for the unknown-provider case.

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