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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context the annotations cannot: the approximate output size (6-10k characters) and the composition of the compact envelope (ids by strength, names dictionary, gate evidence for all stages), which helps an agent budget context. It does not describe pagination or error behavior beyond the schema's did_you_mean note.

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?

It is front-loaded with the operating concept but written as one dense paragraph of internal shorthand ('presale to closure', 'ids by strength', 'gate evidence') that an outside agent must decode. No sentence is pure filler, yet the jargon raises cognitive cost disproportionate to the single paragraph's length.

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 complex, option-heavy planning tool with a nested context object, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description covers the output format and size but never explains the domain vocabulary it relies on (what a 'stage', 'gate', or 'route' actually is). The schema handles parameter detail well, but the core output contract remains 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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description genuinely extends the meaning of min_strength='core' beyond the schema's terse default note: it defines what counts as core (context rule, flag or gate-critical artifact), caps it at 8 work items per stage, and gives the producer-selection priority order. That is real added semantics for at least one parameter.

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 says it will 'Route from presale to closure for a project context', which hints at producing a staged project plan, but 'route' is jargon that never resolves into a plain statement of what the tool returns or does. It names no sibling (validate_plan, check_gate, when_to_use) to disambiguate, so an agent must infer the tool's role from the title alone.

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 gives real usage guidance on format: default compact, and 'ask for one stage with stages:[...] and format:full' to get reasons and avoid texts. That is genuine when-to-use encoded at the option level. However it offers no guidance on when to call this tool rather than validate_plan, check_gate, or when_to_use, nor any prerequisites.

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