get_agent_widget_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so safety is covered externally. The description adds no behavioral context such as auth requirements, return shape, or why conversation_signature might be needed, even for a read operation that may involve an expiring token.

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?

It is only four words, but the problem is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The single sentence does not earn its place because it conveys almost nothing beyond the tool name.

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 simple read tool with full schema descriptions and strong annotations, the description still needs to distinguish this from sibling get_agent_* routes. It fails to say what the widget config is or when this route is preferable, leaving an agent unable to select confidently.

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%, so both agent_id and conversation_signature are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3.

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?

Only restates the tool name with 'Config' swapped for 'route'; it does not explain what an Agent Widget Config contains or how it differs from the many get_agent_* siblings. A minimal verb+resource is present but adds no differentiating detail beyond the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite information, and no named alternative such as get_agent_route. The description gives the agent nothing to decide whether this tool is the right one.

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