route_emergency

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the return structure (who to call, order, first steps, costs, dispatch phone) and the conditional availability of 24/7 dispatch numbers. This is informative but does not cover edge cases like unrecognized problems or error handling.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality and output, while the second adds the optional parameter nuance. No fluff 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 low complexity (2 params, annotations present, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: input format, output contents, and optional state usage. It does not explain output schema shape (but that is handled by output schema), nor does it address potential failures or multi-match cases. Almost complete for the intended use.

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% with basic descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaningful context for the 'state' parameter, noting it enables region-aware dispatch numbers, which the schema description does not convey. For 'problem', the description restates the schema's intent without adding detail, so the net improvement is moderate but solid.

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: it routes a home emergency by returning matching situations with who to call, order, first steps, costs, and dispatch phone. The verb 'route' is specific and the scope is well-defined. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings (get_scenario, list_scenarios) by focusing on actionable routing rather than simply fetching or listing scenarios.

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 implies usage when a user describes a home emergency in plain words, and optionally when a US state is known. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_scenario might be preferred for retrieving a single scenario without dispatch info). The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or differentiation.

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