hb_route_select

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the call is a read-only analysis, how constraints influence the recommendation, whether there are latency or rate-limit implications, or what triggers a reroute.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though minimal enough that no structure beyond one clause exists.

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?

For a two-parameter routing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the shape of the recommendation or how constraints affect it. The schema covers inputs, but the behavioral and output picture remains thin.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the nested constraints object shape (max_tokens, speed, cost). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (analyze/recommend) and resource (model/provider routing) for an input prompt. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the adjacent hb_route_evaluate or hb_route_stats siblings in the same family.

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 on when to use this versus hb_route_evaluate, hb_route_stats, or any other sibling. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and nothing about when routing is or is not appropriate.

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