triage

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses deterministic behavior and no LLM usage, and specifies the output format (call + one-line reflex). This adds valuable context for the agent.

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?

Despite being longer, the description is front-loaded with 'THE FRONT DOOR' and every sentence adds value: examples, determinism note, and a direct usage directive. No filler.

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 routing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what it does, when to use it, what input to provide, and what output to expect (the call and a reflex). Complete in context.

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, but the description greatly enriches the intent parameter with concrete examples, clearly defining what constitutes a valid intent. This is highly actionable guidance.

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 routes the user to the exact check to run first, acting as a front door across the trust layer. It distinguishes itself from sibling verification tools by being the entry point for unknown intents, with specific examples of intents.

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?

Explicitly says 'When you don't know which tool, call this' and describes the scenarios (doing or asserting) with examples. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies alternatives are the specific check tools.

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