routing_app_coverages__get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and 'by ID', which is consistent and adds minimal context. No contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. Every word is necessary, and the important action ('Read one... by ID') is front-loaded. Ideal length.

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 simple GET with well-documented parameters and annotations, the description is complete enough. It doesn't describe the return format, but no output schema exists and the agent can infer a typical API response. Minor gap: no indication of what fields are in the response, but not critical.

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%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions ('Resource identifier.', 'comma-separated list...'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters fully.

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 'Read one routing app coverage by ID', which uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('routing app coverage'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, and delete, making the read operation unmistakable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives, but the simple read nature is implied. The sibling list includes create/update/delete variants, so context is sufficient for basic discrimination.

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