route_for

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's value-add is the resolution behavior: next hops are mapped to the owning resource (firewall, NVA, internal LB) or fall back to an explicit 'ip:x' node. That is genuine behavioral detail an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema. It does not say what happens when the target is unknown or over-broad, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core subject (user-defined routes) is front-loaded. It is dense with nested clauses for a one-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does describe next-hop resolution. However, for a query tool it omits the target format, whether multiple routes are returned, and any error semantics, so an agent can select the tool but may not invoke it with a correctly-shaped argument.

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 0% for the single 'target' parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by listing the kinds of resources a route can apply to (subnet, NIC, VM, VMSS, injected service), hinting at accepted target values, but it never states whether target is a resource ID, name, or IP, or whether a type qualifier is required. This is partially compensating, not fully.

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 names the resource (user-defined routes) and the scope of application (subnet, NIC, VM, VMSS, injected service), so an agent can tell roughly what comes back. But it never states the action verb ('list'/'get') nor connects it to the 'route_for' name, leaving the operation type implied rather than stated. It also does not differentiate itself from the similarly-shaped sibling nsg_rules_for.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as nsg_rules_for or ingress_paths. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the route-lookup companion to those tools.

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