preview_approval_routing

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

The description says 'preview' implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint to false (not read-only). This is a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond what annotations claim.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes a clarifying parenthetical. It is concise without being vague, earning a high 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 lacks an output schema, so the description should explain what the preview returns (e.g., list of approvers, path format). It doesn't. It also doesn't clarify whether the operation is safe (especially given the annotation conflict). For a tool with two params and no output schema, more detail is needed.

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 100% with both parameters documented (table and record). The description mentions the logic behind routing (existing rows + rules) but does not add meaning to the parameters themselves, so it stays at the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: previewing the planned approver path for a record, including before/after submission and the basis (existing sysapproval_approver rows + approval rules). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_approval_history or submit_for_approval.

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?

The description gives useful context (before/after submission) but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives. It implies a preview use case but lacks clear differentiation from related approval tools.

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