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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, lowering the bar. The description adds context about the content of the return (semantics, guidance, inputs, hooks, fields) but discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, error conditions, or required permissions. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence of about 20 words, efficiently front-loaded with the action 'Return' and listing five distinct items. No filler words or redundant information; it 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining return values. It lists five categories but does not describe their structure, format, or how they are presented. For a simple zero-parameter, read-only tool, this is moderate completeness, but it leaves room for ambiguity about the response shape.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies. The description mentions 'mandate inputs' as a returned item, not a parameter, so it adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 function with 'Return' followed by a specific resource: Verify Gateway semantics, /v1/route vs /v1/decide guidance, mandate inputs, ledger evidence hooks, and decision fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like route_task and decide_agent_call, which perform actions rather than return options. The broad list of returned items makes it slightly less precise than a single decisive action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage. There are no explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like get_hosting_options or get_subscription_options.

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