os_mcp_stats_routing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description is consistent with these and adds a small amount of context by indicating the tool returns an explanation rather than data, but it does not disclose details like how routing is determined or what inputs influence it.

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?

A single focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

Even with annotations and an output schema present, the description leaves usage guidance and parameter semantics to be inferred. For a tool whose behavior is routing-specific and whose main parameter is a free-text query, this is too thin for confident selection and invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It only weakly implies the 'query' parameter via 'stats queries' and says nothing about 'comparisonLevel' or 'providerPreference', even though those enums are central to routing behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and a specific resource ('whether stats queries route to ONS or NOMIS'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that execute ONS/NOMIS queries rather than explain routing decisions.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are named or contrasted. The agent must infer usage solely from the one-line purpose statement and the sibling list.

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