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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new interpretive context beyond the annotations: the packet is 'bounded representative' and 'Mechanical cues are not trust or quality scores,' which prevents misevaluation of output.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the sequencing constraint is front-loaded in the first sentence. Dense but every clause carries routing or interpretation information.

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 read-only, two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers sequencing, alternatives, and output interpretation. It is complete enough to call correctly, though the nature of the 'routing packet' contents remains somewhat unclear.

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?

Both parameters are optional and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents model_claim and provider_claim as unverified provenance labels. The description adds no further parameter guidance, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Read a bounded representative routing packet.' It also names sibling tools (commons_arrival, commons_search, commons_opportunities, commons_gaps), which helps distinguish its role. The jargon 'adapter kit' and 'routing packet' is somewhat abstract, keeping this just short of a 5.

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 explicitly positions the tool in a sequence ('Use after commons_arrival for the default low-cost cold-start path') and routes the agent: follow a representative item or use commons_search, before expanding to commons_opportunities or commons_gaps. Both when-to-use and named alternatives are present.

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