os_route_descriptor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the 'Describe' verb is consistent with a non-mutating probe. The description adds the useful domain concept of 'graph readiness' but does not explain what readiness means or how it affects subsequent routing calls.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the tool's scope in nine words and could not be meaningfully shortened.

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?

With a zero-required-parameter schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient for a correct invocation. The main gap is the undefined 'graph readiness' term and its relationship to routing siblings, but this does not block calling the tool.

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?

The only parameter is a fixed const tool name, so there are effectively no user-facing parameters and the description carries no semantic burden. Although schema description coverage is 0%, the property is self-documenting and no required parameters exist.

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 states a specific verb ('Describe') and a specific subject ('MCP Geo route-planning capabilities and graph readiness'), making the tool's role as an introspection/capability probe clear. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the route-planning scope distinguishes it from generic descriptors like os_mcp_descriptor.

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 guidance is given about when to call this tool versus related tools such as os_mcp_route_query, os_route_get, or os_mcp_descriptor. Any sequencing like 'check graph readiness before routing' is left entirely to inference.

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