routing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully explains the behavioral logic of strategies (e.g., 'fastest' means healthiest circuits) and that quality_floor 'filters out low-quality providers', but omits safety characteristics, side effects of the 'set' operation, or potential error conditions.

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?

Two dense, information-rich sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence establishes the get/set dual purpose immediately and lists strategies; the second explains quality_floor. Every clause 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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description should ideally disclose what values are returned on a 'get' operation or confirmation on 'set'. It also doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., does max_cost_per_call_usd only apply to 'cheapest'?). Adequate but with clear documentation gaps for a 4-parameter configuration tool.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds significant semantic value by explaining what strategy values mean beyond the schema's simple list, and clarifies the purpose of quality_floor. It does not explicitly mention 'action' or 'max_cost_per_call_usd', preventing a score of 5.

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 specifies the dual get/set operation on 'provider routing strategy' and enumerates specific strategy types (cheapest, fastest, etc.). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'budget' or 'check_balance', the specific domain ('routing strategy') distinguishes it sufficiently.

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 explains what each strategy means (e.g., 'cheapest (lowest cost above quality floor)'), which implicitly guides strategy selection. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, prerequisites for calling it, or when to prefer 'get' versus 'set' operations.

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