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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The sentence 'Does not create a scan or change a code' restates that no side effects occur, adding only modest extra context (specifically that scans and codes are untouched) and nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is partly redundant with the readOnly annotation, which slightly dilutes the efficiency of an otherwise tight definition.

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?

For a tool taking two nested free-form objects with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description omits what a routing program or context object should contain and what a dry run returns (validation errors, trace, matched destination). An agent has enough to understand intent but not enough to construct a correct call.

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 coverage is 0% and both parameters are untyped free-form objects, so the description carries real weight: it maps 'program' to a routing program and 'context' to a sample scan context. That gives both opaque params meaning, but it adds no structural detail (expected keys, program DSL shape), so the compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific verb (dry-run/simulate) and resource (a routing program against a sample scan context), which clearly separates it from mutating siblings like set_routing or create_qr. It does not, however, explicitly name the alternative tool an agent should reach for after the dry run, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Does not create a scan or change a code' implies this is the safe preview path before committing changes via set_routing, but the description never states when to use this versus the real routing mutation or what prerequisites exist. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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