Get a routing plans objects

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

The description adds the HTTP method context (GET) and a simple 'Read-only' label. However, these behavioral traits are already extensively covered by the provided annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint: false), so it adds minimal unique behavioral value.

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 concise, but the phrasing is grammatically weak ('Get a routing plans objects'). While it front-loads the intent, the low quality of the prose prevents a higher score.

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?

The tool is clearly a read operation against a specific ID, and the schema is complete for defining the call. However, the description lacks the specific context (e.g., 'list all routings contained in this plan') that would make the definition truly robust.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, meaning the input fields (id and response_format) are fully documented. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, thus meeting the baseline score for full coverage.

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 the resource (routing plans objects) and the action (Get), but the wording is vague. It relies heavily on the tool name to differentiate it from other routing list tools, rather than defining the hierarchical relationship (routings *within* a plan).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus simply listing all routings, or getting a whole routing plan. It offers no explicit alternatives or conditions for use beyond the technical nature of the GET request.

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