Run the deterministic routing policy for a single lead and return the decision without writing changes, so you can inspect how routing rules apply before approval.
Run the deterministic routing policy for one lead and return the decision. Does not write anywhere.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lead_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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.