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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail – that rules are returned in order – and enumerates the returned components. Beyond that it adds little behavioral context, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and packs the three returned artifacts without filler. Nothing to trim.

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?

With no inputs, full annotation coverage, and an output schema documenting the return shape, the description only needs to say what the tool is for, which it does. Minor gap: it doesn't say whose policy (enterprise scope) is returned, though the mention of 'enterprise threshold' implies it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 ('Return') and names the exact resources returned: ordered routing rules, policy version, and enterprise threshold. This clearly separates it from siblings like preview_route and get_routing_case. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 explicit 'use this when' guidance and no named alternatives, but the wording ('policy', 'threshold', 'version') implies this is a policy-introspection call rather than a route evaluation. The distinction from preview_route is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing "Read-only" is largely redundant. The description does add scope value by enumerating the joined entities returned (account, open opportunities, territory, timestamps), which signals this performs several lookups, but it says nothing about behavior when a lead is missing or the result is partial.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the payload contents front-loaded and the safety note last. Nothing to cut.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no prose. For a single-param read tool this is close to adequate, but it leaves open the lead_id format and the when-to-use boundary against five routing siblings — decisions an agent still has to guess at.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for lead_id and adds nothing — no format, no source-system hint. The parameter is self-evident by name and required, which keeps this at minimum-viable rather than failing.

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?

Specific verb+resource: returns a normalized lead plus its account, open opportunities, territory and source timestamps — an agent knows exactly what data it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from routing siblings like get_routing_case or list_leads_for_routing, so the boundary must be inferred.

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 call this versus the routing siblings, nor on prerequisites (does the lead need to be in a routing case first?). "Read-only" hints at safety but is not a usage condition.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds the returned content categories, but nothing about missing-ID behavior, result caps when querying by lead ID, or ordering of audit events — meaningful gaps for a lookup tool.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and the dual-mode behavior, with the field list as a compact parenthetical. Nothing is wasted; it is perhaps slightly terse given the parameter ambiguity it resolves.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the important dual-mode semantics are captured. The only shortfall is edge-case behavior (unknown ID, empty lead result) and result volume when querying by lead ID.

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 0% and the single parameter has an opaque name (case_or_lead_id); the description is what disambiguates it, explaining that a case ID yields one case while a lead ID yields all cases. That is real value beyond the schema, though no format examples are given.

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 uses a specific verb ("Return") plus a concrete resource (workflow case) and enumerates the payload fields (status, decision, attempts, errors, audit events). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like explain_routing_policy or get_lead_context, but the retrieval purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It implies two usage modes (single case by case ID, all cases by lead ID), which is useful routing information. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as explain_routing_policy or get_lead_context, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context with the max 100 cap and one-line summary output shape, but it omits ordering, pagination, and what leads are included. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 only two sentences and is front-loaded with the key list operation and cap. 'Read-only' is slightly redundant with the annotations, but the rest is efficient.

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 output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, and the annotations cover safety behavior. However, with five sibling tools in the routing workflow, the description does not explain when this list operation is the right choice versus get_lead_context or preview_route.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single limit parameter. It states the max of 100, which is useful, but it does not mention the default value of 20 or what happens when limit is omitted, leaving partial coverage.

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: list leads, with a one-line summary each. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from routing siblings like get_lead_context or preview_route.

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 only usage-like statement is 'Read-only,' which restates the annotation rather than explaining when to use this tool. It gives no guidance on choosing between this and get_lead_context, preview_route, or the other routing tools.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'does not write anywhere' plus 'deterministic' largely restate those hints rather than extending them. It is consistent, not contradictory, but adds little beyond what structured fields already say — no mention of state dependencies, expected cost, or what 'decision' contains.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the non-writing constraint immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and with a single obvious parameter the description covers the essentials. The one remaining gap is the relationship to preview_route_with_country_hint, which an agent would need to pick correctly.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. 'For one lead' loosely ties lead_id to a single lead, but it never explains the identifier format, whether it must exist first, or what happens when it doesn't. For a trivial one-parameter tool this is adequate but thin.

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: run the deterministic routing policy for one lead and return the decision. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling preview_route_with_country_hint, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The most important routing decision an agent faces here — choosing between preview_route and preview_route_with_country_hint — is left entirely unaddressed. Only a weak implied signal ('preview', 'does not write anywhere') suggests this is the plain dry-run variant.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing that the hint is validated, normal policy runs on it, and results are always marked for human review. The 'does not write anywhere' line is redundant with annotations but harmless.

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-loads the purpose, then gives the two constraint sentences, then the safety note. No wasted sentences; every line adds information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers usage scope, param constraints, and validation/review behavior. Only lead_id's role is left implicit, a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden, and it does for the two non-obvious params: country_code must be a two-letter code and evidence must quote the supporting text. lead_id is left implied as the target lead, kept from a 5.

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 (preview), resource (route), and the discriminating condition (a lead whose country is missing, using an inferred country hint). This clearly separates it from the sibling preview_route, which presumably assumes a known country.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to leads with a missing country, implying preview_route handles the normal case. It does not name the alternative tool outright or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a full routing directive.

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