Get application server routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations cannot: the required applications:read scope, and the detailed shape of what is returned (per-route state, DNS status vocabulary ok/missing/elsewhere/unknown, A/AAAA records to create, availability and limits). It stops short of describing error conditions or empty-result behavior, so not 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 dense sentence followed by a short imperative routing sentence — no filler, and the workflow instruction is placed last where it reads naturally as the next step. The middle enumeration is long but each item is substantive rather than decorative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return content — and it does, enumerating routes, fallback, current vs applied revision, overall and per-route state, DNS status with records to create, and limits. Combined with the stated auth scope and the downstream hand-off, an agent has everything needed to call and use this 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including pattern and length constraints, so the schema fully carries parameter semantics. The description's mention of 'one owned Managed Applications server' only loosely maps to orderNo and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (server routes of one owned Managed Applications server) and then defines exactly what those routes are: customer-owned hostnames routed by the in-guest HTTPS front door to local services, plus fallback, revisions, states and DNS status. This is unmistakably distinct from the mutating sibling configure_application_server_routes.

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?

Explicitly prescribes sequencing: 'Read this before configure_application_server_routes and pass its revision as expected_revision.' That names the alternative, the ordering constraint, and the data hand-off between the two tools, leaving nothing to infer.

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