get_ai_route

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. It does disclose which signals drive the recommendation (live status, pricing, drift), but says nothing about whether this is a read-only computation, whether it queries external systems, latency, or any side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the accepted priority values. No filler, though the priority list could have been tied more explicitly to selection criteria.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the priority values are covered. However, with no annotations and a read-style recommendation tool, the definition leaves the agent unsure about side effects and how priority actually changes the result.

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% and the single 'priority' parameter has no enum in the schema, so the description's enumeration of valid values (cheap, fast, reliable, balanced) and the default of 'balanced' is a genuine value-add beyond the structured field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Get AI model routing recommendation' — and identifies the inputs it weighs (live status, pricing, drift), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_ai_status, get_ai_model_pricing and get_model_drift that return raw data. It stops short of describing the recommendation's form, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Naming the four priorities ('cheap, fast, reliable, balanced') implies when each choice applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus the sibling status/pricing/drift tools. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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