decompose_optimization_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: it recommends tools rather than executing them, and it is explicitly barred from suggesting run_end_to_end_workflow. It does not state that it is side-effect-free/read-only or how detailed the emitted plan is, leaving a small gap.

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 tightly-scoped sentences with no filler; the routing rule and the negative constraint are front-loaded. Slightly dense with the enumerated tool list, but every clause is load-bearing.

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?

Output schema exists, so the recommendation result need not be described. The behavioral routing rules and exclusions are covered; the only real gap is parameter meaning, which is a schema-level omission rather than a description failure.

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?

Two parameters ('query' required, 'context' optional) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what either accepts or how they differ. An agent cannot tell whether 'context' is prior conversation, domain constraints, or something else.

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 verb 'analyzes' is vague on its own, but the description immediately clarifies the real function: a router that decomposes open-ended problems into a plan of named modular tools or routes specific requests to a single tool. It is distinguishable from the execution/review siblings by its planning-only 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?

Explicit branching guidance: high-level/open-ended → break into a step-by-step plan; already specific → recommend only the single required tool. It also names the excluded alternative ('NEVER recommends the overall end-to-end workflow tool'), which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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