get_procedure_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond the annotations—it does not explain what 'Procedure' means in this routing context or what the return behavior is. The description fails to supplement the structured data with any useful behavioral context.

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 extremely short at only two words, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks front-loaded context or any structural elements that would help an agent understand the tool's role.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about the procedure retrieval process, the route context, or how the returned procedure differs from other procedure-related tools, leaving the agent without the necessary context to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters including agent_id, branch_id, procedure_id, version_id, and agent_version_id. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Get Procedure' restates the tool name and adds no independent information about what the tool actually does. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_procedure_draft_route or list_procedures_route, leaving the agent unable to tell them apart based on the description alone.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_procedure_draft_route, list_procedures_route, or compile_procedures_route. The agent receives no context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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