Get a routing form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what the returned definition includes, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error handling or data source behavior, which is acceptable given the read-only, idempotent nature.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key concept ('Full definition of a routing form') and then enumerates the contained elements, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only getter with one parameter, a rich output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential content of the response. Minor gaps remain around parameter semantics and explicit alternative routing, but these are not critical for a tool of this complexity.

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 has one parameter, formId, with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only ties formId to 'a routing form' implicitly, giving minimal semantic context. It does not explain what formId should be (e.g., UUID, slug, external ID) or where to find it, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 tool's specific function: retrieving the full definition of a routing form, including steps, fields, and qualifier rules. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_routing_forms, which would provide a listing rather than a complete definition.

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 phrase 'Full definition of a routing form' implies this is the tool to use when complete routing-form details are needed, in contrast to listing or modifying routing forms. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the alternative list_routing_forms by name, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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