veto_route_task

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

The description complements the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the output (complexity score, tier, model recommendation, rate status). It does not contradict annotations and adds specific behavioral context beyond the annotation alone.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core functionality and immediately followed by usage advice. Every sentence is essential and concise.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary action and return values. It omits details on output structure but suffices for understanding the tool's role.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, meeting the baseline of 3 but not exceeding it.

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 scores a task for complexity (0-100) and returns optimal tier, model recommendation, and rate status. The usage guidance 'Use before any substantial task' further distinguishes it as a preliminary routing tool among many veto_* analysis tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use before any substantial task to let the router decide which model to use,' providing clear usage context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but given sibling tools, the guidance is appropriate.

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