Route

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so safety traits are covered. The description adds that it routes to 'federation organ (GEOX, WEALTH, WELL, A-FORGE) or kernel tool,' but does not explain that if organ_tool is provided, it makes a bridge call, and if absent, returns a routing decision. This behavioral nuance is only in parameter descriptions, not the main description. Thus, the description adds moderate value beyond 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Purpose and usage are immediately clear. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 1 required, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core routing function and usage context. However, it could briefly mention the dual behavior (return decision vs. call tool) to improve completeness. Still, it's adequate for effective use.

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 high (88%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the federation organs ('GEOX, WEALTH, WELL, A-FORGE'), which directly informs the 'organ' parameter values. This goes beyond the schema's description of 'Optional explicit organ override.' The additional context justifies a higher score.

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 clearly states it is a 'canonical intent router' that 'routes a natural-language intent to the correct federation organ or kernel tool.' It uses a specific verb ('routes') and resource ('intent'), and the phrase 'Use when you know what you want but not which tool to call' distinguishes it from direct tool calls. The sibling tool arif_kernel_route may overlap, but the description explicitly mentions federation organs, providing differentiation.

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 states when to use: 'Use when you know what you want but not which tool to call.' This implies when to avoid (when you know the tool), and the alternative is direct invocation of specific tools. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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