get_static_route_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; 'retrieves' signals a read-only operation, which is the main behavioral fact. It does not mention failure modes (unknown route_id, invalid vdom) or any permission/connection requirements, and the Returns list is generic rather than concrete field names.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence is good, but the following sentence repeats it, and the Parameters block duplicates schema text almost verbatim. The Returns block earns its place because no output schema exists.

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 three-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials and substitutes a coarse return summary. However, the return summary ('Complete route configuration', 'Status information') is too generic to tell an agent what fields to expect, leaving a gap for a 'detail' tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description largely restates schema text ('Identifier of the FortiGate device', 'ID of the route to query') but does add one genuine clarification: vdom is optional and falls back to the device default, which the schema's 'Virtual Domain' description omits.

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 ('Get detailed information for a specific static route') and contrasts implicitly with list_static_routes by emphasizing a single route. It never names the sibling tools (list_static_routes, get_routing_table, lookup_route) that could be confused with it, so differentiation is only inferable.

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 word 'specific' implies you must already know the route_id rather than searching, which is weak implicit guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_static_routes or lookup_route, and no prerequisites (e.g. device must be registered) are given.

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