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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond these flags: it explains the skip logic based on a skill's own 'not for' line, that exclusions are quoted verbatim, and that a guided journey is returned for project-level tasks. This clarifies output structure and decision-making, going beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise sentences, each adding value: the main action, the specific outputs, and a usage directive. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no fluff or repetition. The description is tightly packed and efficient.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description covers the essential behavioral contract (what it returns, when to use it, and how it handles task scope). It doesn't detail each parameter's role, but that's already in the input schema. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning that context, phase, and stack are used to narrow results, but schema descriptions fill that need. Overall, adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 all five parameters already have clear definitions. The description reinforces the task parameter ('Describe the job in your own words') but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully covers parameters.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('route a task to the right skills') and details what the tool returns (which skills to load first, which to skip, and a guided journey for project-level tasks). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by positioning itself as 'the tool to reach for first,' so it stands apart from get_journey, get_skill, load_skill, and search_skills.

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 description explicitly says 'This is the tool to reach for first,' giving a clear directive on when to use it (as the initial step for any task). It also hints at when a different response is expected ('when the task spans a whole project') without needing to name alternatives, as the first-step context makes the usage pattern evident.

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