Intent-routed planner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds context about the planning and routing behavior, which is useful beyond the 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 with two main parts: the primary function and a 'When to use' section. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured by briefly listing parameter categories.

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?

Given the high complexity (10 parameters, no schema documentation, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the different Intent types, how parameters map to intents, or what the returned plan/result looks like. The agent needs more details to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'typed Intent' and provides intent examples but does not explain any of the 10 parameters (a, b, k, key, band, cell, claim, window, description). This leaves the agent to guess their 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?

Clearly states the tool submits a typed Intent and returns a plan or executed result. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing itself as a planner that maps Intent variants to the right tool call, avoiding the need to pick a primitive manually.

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?

Explicitly provides 'When to use' guidance with concrete examples ('where is X', 'is A like B') and conditions (when you don't want to pick a primitive yourself). This helps the agent decide when to use this tool over alternatives.

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