get_route_to

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered structurally; the description redundantly reinforces it with '[READ]' and adds the useful detail that protocol filtering is optional. It does not disclose output shape, hit/miss behavior for an unknown prefix, or whether results are live vs cached.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a tight Args block; every line earns its place and there is no filler. The bracketed '[READ]' tag is slightly redundant with the annotation but costs little.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description gives no indication of what a lookup returns (matched route, next-hop, protocol, empty result handling). For a read tool whose annotations cover safety, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about result 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden and does document all three parameters with examples ('10.0.0.0/24', 'bgp, ospf, static') and the meaning of target ('Device name from config'). It does not clarify that target is optional (defaults to null) or what happens when protocol is left empty.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Routing-table lookup') plus the scoping input ('for a destination prefix'), which is unambiguous. No sibling performs routing lookups, so there is no ambiguity to disambiguate against the listed tools; it stops just short of 5 only because it does not frame itself relative to any alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the subject matter — an agent with a destination prefix knows this is the tool — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative. Given no sibling overlaps routing lookups, the omission is low-cost but still leaves usage to inference.

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