cache_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: in-process (not persistent) caching, cache-hit responses marked cached=true, and that persistent per-account caching is a paid feature. It does not say whether the call has side effects, what auth it needs, or how cache scope/eviction works.

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?

Three short sentences with the core differentiator (cache-first) front-loaded and no filler. The middle clause about demonstrating the caching layer is marginally self-referential but still informative.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the caching behavior and one return field (cached=true) but omits any parameter meaning and any note on the interaction between include_paid and the paid persistent cache. Adequate on behavior, thin on inputs.

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% across six parameters (prompt, region, priority, include_paid, max_output_tokens, required_capabilities), and the description explains none of them. Only 'identical requests' loosely hints that prompt is the cache key, leaving the remaining parameters undocumented in both places.

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 returns a routing plan and frames it relative to the sibling 'route' ('Same as route, but checks an in-process cache first'), which lets an agent distinguish the two. The gap is that it assumes the agent already knows what 'route' does rather than restating the core verb+resource.

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?

'Repeated identical requests return the cached plan' implies when this tool pays off versus plain route, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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