ai_economy_router

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention a key behavior: returning aggregated results from multiple servers if needed. However, it does not clarify whether the tool makes external calls, has side effects, or what happens when no server matches—leaving the agent partly in the dark about safety and error 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 routing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a high-level idea but omits practical details: what kinds of queries are supported, how the 'context' object influences routing, and what the aggregated result format looks like. It is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would need to discover at runtime.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds only marginal meaning by reinforcing that 'query' is a natural language input, but it does not clarify the 'context' parameter's role or provide any examples. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's function: intelligently routing natural language queries to the appropriate specialist MCP server(s). It uses a specific verb ('routes') and a clear resource ('specialist MCP server(s)'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are domain-specific (e.g., ai_governance_assess) by being a meta-router.

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?

The description implies that this tool should be used when a user has a natural language query that needs to be directed to the best specialist server. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, nor does it name alternatives (e.g., 'use this only when unsure which specific tool to call').

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