find_similar_routing_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states the purpose without mentioning return format, confidence thresholds, ordering, or any side effects. This is a minimal and insufficient disclosure for a tool that likely performs a search operation with configurable parameters.

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 core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant elaboration. It is appropriately concise.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what results look like, how 'similar' is determined, or how confidence and limit affect outcomes. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about invocation and interpretation.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (description, limit, min_confidence), achieving 100% coverage. The description text doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 action ('Find') and the resource ('routing patterns') with a qualifier ('similar to a description'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_patterns by focusing on routing patterns specifically. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'similar' means, leaving some ambiguity about the matching mechanism.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as search_patterns and get_routing_patterns exist, but the description offers no comparison or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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