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

Annotations already cover safety traits: read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by specifying that routing is deterministic and that the tool does not perform product execution.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant text. Both clauses carry useful information: the default deterministic routing behavior and the no-execution constraint.

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 annotations and output schema mean the description need not explain return values or safety profile, and it adequately states the core routing behavior. Still, with a nested 'context' object and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description leaves input semantics underspecified.

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%, and the description does not explain the required 'intent' parameter or the optional nested 'context' parameter. It also does not clarify the meanings of 'preferred_product' or 'allow_service_engagement', so the description does not compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 routing purpose: deterministically selecting navigation, engagement, or clarification. It also distinguishes this from execution-oriented tools by saying 'no product execution', though it does not explicitly say it matches capabilities by name.

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 implies this is the default routing tool and that it should not be used for product execution. However, it does not explicitly compare when to use this versus siblings such as get_capability or get_engagement_path.

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