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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Deny stays deny' hints at sticky/cached denial behavior, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about authentication needs (apiKey), what happens on allow, whether routing has side effects, or what the response contains. For a 7-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage this is a large gap.

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 two sentences are front-loaded and waste no words, but the brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness for a complex routing tool. Sizing is inappropriate to the tool's surface area.

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 7 parameters, 5 required, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is nowhere near complete enough for an agent to invoke this correctly. Critical details like what 'tool rule' is checked, what the return signals, and how apiKey is used are all absent.

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 7 parameters, including 5 required ones (environmentId, id, fromAgent, toAgent, tool) plus apiKey and an untyped payload. The description explains none of them and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 name promises routing (veya_route_message) but the description actually describes a policy lookup: 'Check the saved tool rule for this API key before routing.' An agent cannot tell whether this tool routes a message or merely gates it, and the purpose is effectively a restatement of an internal implementation step rather than a clear verb+resource. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like veya_route_secure_message or veya_set_tool_policy.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. 'Before routing' vaguely implies it belongs in a routing flow, but the agent is not told when to call this versus veya_route_secure_message or how it relates to veya_set_tool_policy.

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