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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful return-content context by specifying ordered steps, ids, details, minutes, and version, though it does not describe error behavior or response shape beyond that.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no obvious waste. It is somewhat dense but efficiently conveys the returned fields and the version-proposal usage hint.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and includes a relevant workflow note. It could do more to distinguish the tool from list_routines or get_run, but it is usable as written.

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 100%, and the single routine parameter is already documented as accepting a name or id. The description does not add meaningful syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific resource and scope: one routine's ordered steps, ids, details, minutes, and version. It does not use an explicit retrieval verb and does not name a sibling tool, but the intended operation is clear from the content.

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?

It gives a workflow hint by saying to name the routine's version when proposing a change, which connects it to propose_routine_change/propose_new_routine. However, it does not explicitly say when to use get_routine versus list_routines, find_starter_routine, or get_run.

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