Delegate a task to an external worker (blocking)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: that the call blocks and waits for the result, that routing resolves via role unless provider/model override, and what comes back (normalized text, usage, errors). It stops short of 5 by not surfacing the exec/permission implications of running an external worker.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero filler: the action and blocking behavior are front-loaded, routing follows, and the return payload closes it out. Every sentence earns its place.

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 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential missing pieces: blocking semantics, routing precedence, and the shape of the return (text/usage/errors), which compensates for the absent output schema. It is thin on the more esoteric parameters, but the schema carries those.

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 73%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds one meaningful semantic point the schema does not state: the precedence between role and the provider/model overrides. Otherwise it contributes little parameter-level meaning beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run one isolated external worker and wait for its result,' which clearly signals single-worker blocking delegation and implicitly distinguishes it from meah_parallel_agents. The title reinforces the blocking nature. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Routes by role unless provider/model are given' gives real routing guidance for the role/provider/model trio, but there is no when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance (e.g. versus meah_run_agent or meah_parallel_agents), no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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