routing_app_coverages_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or what the returned coverage represents. The endpoint string conveys only that a read occurs.

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 string is short but wastes its entire length by duplicating the same endpoint twice in parentheses, providing zero informational value. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

For a resource-fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a routing app coverage is and how it relates to app store versions. None of that context is present, leaving the agent to infer everything from the tool name.

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 100%, so all four parameters (id, include, fields_appStoreVersions, fields_routingAppCoverages) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing, but per the high-coverage baseline a 3 is appropriate.

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 is a bare restatement of the HTTP endpoint ('GET /v1/routingAppCoverages/{id}') duplicated verbatim, which essentially repeats what the tool name already conveys. It does identify a verb and resource, but adds no distinguishing detail versus siblings like routing_app_coverages_update_instance or routing_app_coverages_delete_instance.

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 alternatives such as routing_app_coverages_create_instance, routing_app_coverages_update_instance, or app_store_versions_routing_app_coverage_get_to_one_relationship. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided.

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