Route Web Task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not explain whether the tool performs any web access, returns a recommendation, has side effects, or what 'cheapest' means (cost, latency, resources). This is a significant gap for a non-trivial routing tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the purpose ('choose', 'cheapest', 'reliable', 'before reading/browsing/screenshots'), making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 router tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'route' means, what the tool returns, or how it selects the cheapest reliable route. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior and return value.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about how 'task' and 'url' influence the routing decision, leaving it at the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Choose') and resource ('cheapest reliable web perception route'), clearly distinguishing this as a router from sibling tools that perform actual perception actions. It also gives context ('before reading, browsing, or using screenshots') and aligns with the sibling list.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'before reading, browsing, or using screenshots.' This provides clear context for its position in the workflow, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools to use instead. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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