444 Route · Intent→Organ

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, but the description mentions 'Optional organ_tool+arguments = governed bridge call', which implies potential execution of a non-read-only action. This contradiction undermines transparency.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. No filler or 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?

Given the complexity (8 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, return values, and constraints (L0 authority, not a free shell). It is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 88% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter info beyond the schema; it mentions 'organ_tool+arguments' but does not elaborate on other parameters.

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 an 'Intent→organ router' and explains the use case: route a goal to the appropriate organ and verb. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning arif_bridge_connect and arif_triage, providing specific alternatives.

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: 'Select when you know the goal but not which organ/verb.' Also gives clear when-not: 'Not session preflight (use arif_triage).' Recommends preferring this over arif_bridge_connect.

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