Route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context: this tool only routes and does not perform science, and it warns against inventing tools. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional sentences about routing-only and not inventing tools are purposeful guardrails. It is slightly cryptic but contains no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's role and key constraints, and an output schema exists, but the task parameter semantics are underspecified. An agent may understand the routing concept yet still lack enough detail to invoke it correctly with real task values.

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 explain the 'task' parameter, but it only mentions '*task*' without defining what values it accepts, expected format, or how it determines routing. This is a meaningful gap for a single required parameter.

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 the tool's function: decide which optional provider plane(s) to connect for a task. It also disambiguates itself with 'Routing only — no science' and warns against inventing domain MCP tools, which helps separate it from science/chemistry-related siblings. However, 'provider plane(s)' is left somewhat vague and no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when routing/connecting provider planes, not for doing science. The note 'molcrafts is already this connection' implies a condition where routing may not be needed, and 'Do not invent domain MCP tools for chemistry APIs' is an explicit exclusion. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient.

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