get_magic_transit_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Get details' conveys a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description adds no further behavioral context such as error behavior, whether the route must already exist, or what the returned detail object 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word ('Get', 'details', 'specific', 'Magic Transit static route') contributes precision and clarity.

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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it identifies the resource and the specific scope. It could be improved by pointing to list_magic_transit_routes for discovering route IDs or by describing the returned detail fields, but these are not critical gaps.

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 descriptions cover both required parameters (route_id and account_id) at 100%, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Get') and names the precise resource ('a specific Magic Transit static route'). This clearly distinguishes it from the list_magic_transit_routes sibling, which is the natural alternative for fetching multiple routes.

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 description implies this tool is for retrieving one existing route by ID, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose it over list_magic_transit_routes or how to obtain route_id. The intended usage is inferable from the name and wording, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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