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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses the response payload shape and that output is 'compact by default' with a full variant available. It stops short of disclosing cost/latency of the lookup itself or how results degrade when no tool matches a sub-task.

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 core action and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the second sentence is a single short usage sentence. The parenthetical output list is slightly dense but every element carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and only read-only annotations, the description is complete enough: it names the input concept, the batch constraint context, the default view, and the per-task result fields. Gaps are minor — nothing on ordering of results relative to input tasks or on behavior when a sub-task yields no match.

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 seven parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only echoes two of them ('compact by default', free/paid/fallbacks in the result list). It adds no insight into interactions such as how category narrows all tasks or how maxPricePerCall composes with freeOnly, so the 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 states a specific verb (batch route) and resource (plain-language sub-tasks resolved to live tools) and explicitly contrasts with the singular route_task sibling via the 'Batch route_task' framing and the 'in one call' batching scope. It also enumerates what each result contains (endpoint, input schema, example args, free/paid, fallbacks), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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?

'Use it to plan a multi-step task' gives a clear positive trigger, and the batching framing implies the alternative is the single-task route_task. However, it never explicitly says 'for a single task use route_task instead' or states exclusions such as the max-10 limit being a reason to split work, so the boundary with the sibling is implied rather than stated.

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