delegate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the model sees only the task string, has no conversation access, blocks for ~10- 60s, routes models by task, and returns an error-prefixed string on failure. It also explains the max_tokens rationale, making runtime behavior predictable.

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 long but every sentence carries information: usage boundaries, parameters, latency, failure mode, and return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear section labels (WHEN TO USE, Args, Note, Returns) for scannability.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what each parameter means, what the model sees, how long it takes, and what is returned on both success and failure. Nothing essential is missing for safe and correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It defines task as self-contained, explains the auto routing behavior for model with specific model aliases, and gives the default and purpose of max_tokens. This is more than enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: offloading a self-contained subtask to a cheaper model and returning its output. It clearly distinguishes itself from premium-token work and from the unrelated siblings (savings, list_models) by defining its exact role.

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?

It provides an explicit WHEN TO USE section with concrete examples of acceptable grunt work and an explicit DO NOT delegate list for judgment work. This gives an agent clear criteria for choosing this tool over doing the work itself or using another tool.

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