system_srr_matcher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and behavior. 'Test' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description doesn't state whether it is a read-only check, what information it returns, or whether it affects any stored routing rules. This is a significant gap for an unannotated 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 clear sentence with no wasted words and is appropriately front-loaded. It could be more informative without becoming verbose, but as a concise resource statement it earns a high score.

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?

With a single string parameter and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the expected outcome or side effects. It does not explain what result means, how to interpret failures, or whether this is a safe dry-run. The tool is simple enough that a few more sentences would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description in the schema says the input is 'an input string to test against SRR rules'. The tool description reiterates that concept without adding format, examples, or constraints beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the burden, but the description adds no extra meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource: test subscription request routing rules. It expands the acronym and indicates the tool validates SRR behavior, which sets it apart from sibling tools like subscription_request_history_list. However, it doesn't clarify what a 'test' entails, stopping slightly short of a fully distinct purpose.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context such as diagnostics or rule debugging, and no exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the word 'Test'. An agent must infer whether this is a dry-run validation, a simulation tool, or a rule lookup.

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