Get router

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no error behavior for a missing router, no project-scoping implications, no note on what a router object contains. It merely restates the read operation the annotations already declare.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its terseness is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness problem, so it scores well here.

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-value explanation is not required, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool sitting among 30+ OpenStack-style siblings, the description does not mention scoping (project_id / get_scope) or failure modes, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 50%: project_id is documented ('omit for the default project', pointing at get_scope), while router_id has no schema description. The phrase 'by ID' at least signals that router_id is the router identifier, partially compensating. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a two-parameter getter where the schema carries most of the burden.

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+resource ('Get one router') and the retrieval key ('by ID'), which is enough to distinguish it from list_routers in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name the list/get pairing, but the singular-resource phrasing makes the distinction 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of list_routers or list_router_interfaces, no prerequisite notes, and no mention of what happens if the ID is unknown. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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