ck_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces 'Read-only — no session state is changed' and adds behavioral context such as returning a ranked list with rationale, which goes 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it opens with the main purpose, then clarifies read-only nature, explains parameters concisely, and ends with usage guidance and alternatives. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, usage context, and differentiation from siblings. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining risk_tier defaults and the purpose of allowed_agents and task. The budget_remaining_cents parameter is implied but not detailed; still, overall adds value.

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 that the tool recommends the best AI agent based on security tier, budget, task type, and past performance. It uses a specific verb ('Recommend') and resource ('best available AI agent'), and distinguishes from siblings by naming ck_delegate and ck_cost_optimizer.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use ck_route to pick an agent, then ck_delegate to transfer the task. Use ck_cost_optimizer for a price-focused comparison without routing.' It also explains parameter defaults (risk_tier defaults to medium) and usage (allowed_agents omit to allow all).

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