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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'Does not execute the external action' — clarifying this is routing-only, but it says nothing about latency, side effects on downstream systems, or what the classification yields (though an output schema exists).

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 fragments, front-loaded with the action and free of filler. The telegraphic style borders on under-specification, but every sentence points at something an agent needs (the action, two sibling routes, and the no-execution boundary).

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 single parameter is fully documented and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. What is missing is enough substance about the routing decision itself — what qualifies as a 'bounded need' and what happens after triage — for an agent to be confident about invoking it versus the named siblings.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Public, non-sensitive request to classify.'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format, length, or content guidance beyond what the schema and its example already provide, making the baseline 3 correct.

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's opening 'Route a bounded need' gestures at triage/classification, and the title 'Triage a capability request' fills in the resource, but the verb is fuzzy and 'bounded need' is unexplained. It does name two siblings (discover_capabilities, bursia_verify_mcp), which helps an agent locate it in the family, but the core action (classify a request and return a routing decision) is only implied.

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?

'Browse: discover_capabilities' and 'Known MCP endpoint: bursia_verify_mcp' point to alternatives, implying a routing rule, but the condition that selects this tool over those siblings is never stated explicitly. The guidance is telegraphic and requires the agent to infer when triage is the right entry point.

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