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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The [PUBLIC READ] prefix is a useful hint that this is a non-mutating read, and the pseudo-code discloses that the tool branches into decode vs prefill paths. But it says nothing about side effects, determinism, required permissions, failure modes, or whether the decision is cached/persisted — internal implementation steps ('serve.get', 'engine.decode') are not caller-facing 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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, and the [PUBLIC READ] safety tag plus the verb are front-loaded. But the middle is a compressed pseudo-code block that is hard to parse and arguably belongs in documentation rather than a tool description, so density substitutes for structure.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must explain both behavior and return value. It gestures at a return ('-> (block, R)') and the branch taken, but does not state the actual response shape an agent would receive, nor how the 7 inputs combine. For a tool of this complexity with zero structured behavioral metadata, it is materially incomplete.

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 100% (all 7 parameters documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'key' and an undefined 'cov', but does not explain the roles of model, target_t_k, u_t, salt, namespace, or guidance_ids, nor how they influence the decode/prefill decision. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource ('Evaluate FCRT Serving Adapter routing decision') and sketches the decision logic (serve.get → test R/cov_ok/prefix_only → decode vs prefill), so the intent is discernible. However, it is written in dense internal jargon (FCRT, cov_ok, R, prefix_only) that an agent without domain knowledge cannot map to a concrete task, and it gives no differentiation from any sibling tool such as verify_action_safety or arbitrate_unattended_weight_gate.

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 explicit statement of when to call this tool, what preconditions must hold, or which sibling to use instead. The [PUBLIC READ] tag hints at a read-only evaluation context but does not say under what circumstances an agent should invoke it versus the many other evaluation/verification tools in the sibling list.

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