volt_recommend_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Shows savings vs your current cost,' which implies a read-only comparison function, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens if no recommendations match criteria. This is inadequate for a recommendation tool with multiple parameters.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding a secondary benefit in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and output, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the primary function and output type but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and result format. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the recommendation includes would be beneficial for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at optimization criteria and savings estimation, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get the optimal provider recommendation') and resources ('for a model'), specifying optimization criteria ('based on cost, latency, reliability, or balanced optimization'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'volt_check_price' by focusing on recommendations rather than price checks or savings calculations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'volt_check_price' or 'volt_get_savings'. It mentions the tool's function but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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