recommend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses that the tool is deliberately shallow, returns a compact table with `session_id`, `verdict`, `refine:` and `act:`, may return a provisional ranking (`status: needs_facets`), routes tasks back to the agent (`native`), does not split tasks, works anonymously, and reflects vault state when logged in. This is far beyond minimal.

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 long but structured and information-dense. It front-loads the core instruction, then covers output format, action mapping, and facets in logical blocks. While every sentence adds value, some details (e.g., exact JSON facet example) could arguably be in a separate reference, but the complexity of the tool justifies the length. No fluff.

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?

Despite having no annotations and a sparse schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, output schema essentials, required follow-up actions, the two-pass facet mechanism, alternatives, and edge cases (needs_key, soon, native). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and handle its return payload, even without seeing the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains `facets` with a concrete example and the two-pass flow, and `query` is implied as the task to route. However, `context` and `n_runner_ups` remain undefined beyond their titles; `n_runner_ups` is somewhat self-explanatory but `context` is vague. Partial compensation, so not a 4, but clearly above baseline due to the facet detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Route a task to the best external tool.' It immediately separates this from siblings by stating it is the mandatory first step, with HyperRoute choosing the tool and executing via `execute`. The routing role is unambiguous and distinct from tools like `describe`, `execute`, or `set_preferences`.

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 is exceptionally clear about when to use this tool ('ALWAYS call this before doing anything'), how to interpret the `use` column (ready/needs_key/native/soon), and when NOT to use it via alternatives: `set_preferences` for durable preferences, `describe` for deeper details, and `report_outcome` for the session_id. It even covers the two-pass refine flow and decomposition expectations.

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