routing_app_coverages__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully convey the safe, read-only nature. The description's 'Read' aligns with these hints and adds no extra behavioral context beyond the endpoint. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the minimal additional info merits a 3.

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, front-loaded sentence with the endpoint appended. It is concise, contains no irrelevant information, and directly communicates the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, strong annotations, and complete schema descriptions, the description is nearly sufficient. It does not explicitly describe the return value (e.g., the full routing app coverage object), but for a GET-by-ID operation this is strongly implied. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of what is returned.

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%, with all three parameters (id, include, fields_routingAppCoverages) clearly documented in the schema, including the source of the id and the purpose of include. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the endpoint, so baseline 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 clearly states the operation ('Read'), the resource ('routing app coverage'), and the identifier ('by ID'). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, and delete, and the included endpoint reinforces the scope.

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 implies usage for direct ID-based reads but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as app_store_versions__routing_app_coverage__get which fetches coverage via an app store version. The context is implied by the resource and verb, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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