route_tools

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 implies a read-only discovery operation by saying 'find tools' and pointing to call_routed_tool for invocation, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or describe the output characteristics.

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 three sentences: a clear purpose statement, a usage directive, and a parameter explanation with example. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is quite complete: it covers the purpose, the sequencing relative to call_routed_tool, and parameter semantics. The existence of an output schema obviates the need to describe return values, so no major gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'query' parameter as a natural-language description of what the user wants to do, complete with a concrete example ('get athlete FTP'). This gives clear semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type field.

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 it finds tools relevant to the task, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform specific operations. It also distinguishes from call_routed_tool by indicating a two-step workflow: find first, then invoke.

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 instructs to call this FIRST and then use call_routed_tool, giving clear sequencing and an example query. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use cases, but for a routing/discovery tool this is sufficient guidance.

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