gosce-portfolio-router

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real example output from /selftest' and being 'quality-assured', but does not disclose key behaviors such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a routing tool.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and hints at self-test output, but lacks details on return values, error responses, and prerequisites like authentication. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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% and the description adds context that the input is 'the same body you'd send as an A2A message', which helps with format understanding. However, it does not provide additional details beyond what the schema already specifies, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is a 'single entry point' that 'routes orchestrators to verified agents by capability'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it is 'a quality-assured broker, not a directory', making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 this is the central hub for routing, suggesting it should be used when capability-based agent selection is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusionary context.

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