get_routing_case

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.