Endorsed Route Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'fail-closed' and 'never enables a route or contacts a remote service', which are valuable behavioral specifics beyond the 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, front-loaded with the main action, no filler. Every word adds value. Ideal conciseness.

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?

While the description covers the tool's core behavior and safety profile, it fails to explain what parameters mean despite low schema coverage. The output schema exists, reducing burden for return values, but parameter semantics are missing.

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%, meaning the schema only provides type info. The description does not explain the meaning or usage of any of the 5 parameters (scopes, client_id, now_epoch, bulk_export, capabilities). This is a critical gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 the tool evaluates an operator-published endorsed-client capability document locally. It specifies it's read-only and fail-closed, giving a precise action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like check_status, which could be similar in spirit.

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?

The description implies usage for local evaluation and says it never enables a route or contacts remote services. This provides implicit guidance (don't use if you need to enable routes or contact remotes), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements or alternative tool suggestions.

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