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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it reveals that approval-required capabilities return a pending plan rather than executing, that approval is not available as a tool, and that re-invocation with plan_id is needed. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare action. It could still disclose side effects or idempotency of execution, so it is not a 5.

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 packed sentences: the first states the core action, the second excludes client_managed routes, and the third explains the approval workflow. Every sentence adds essential information, and the approval-specific behavior is front-loaded. No filler 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?

The description thoroughly covers the routing constraint and the approval-required workflow, including status field and plan-related return values. However, since there is no output schema, it omits what a successful normal execution returns (e.g., execution ID or result payload), and input/binding/request parameters remain contextless. Given the tool's complexity, it is mostly complete but not fully.

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 only 20% (only plan_id has a description). The prose explains capability_id ('by capability id') and plan_id (via the approval-reinvocation flow), adding real meaning to those two parameters. However, input, binding_id, and request_id remain entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description does not fully compensate for the low 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Execute one routed or known algenta_managed capability by capability id.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and scope. It also adds a boundary by noting client_managed routes are out of scope, though it does not name a specific sibling tool as the alternative, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It states the tool is for routed/known algenta_managed capabilities, that client_managed routes must go through the customer app/adapter path, and details the approval flow: when approval_required, it returns a pending plan instead of executing, and the user must call again with plan_id after out-of-band approval. It also clearly says approval is a separate HTTP operation, not a tool.

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