Introspect a routing key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), shows it is a read-only inspection, and states authentication is done via the routing key itself. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare parameter schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint, and no wasted words. Each clause adds useful information.

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 single-parameter introspection tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is fairly complete: it names the endpoint, lists the returned data categories, and explains authentication. It could mention response format or error cases, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema only provides the parameter name with no description (0% coverage). The description adds that authentication is via the routing key, giving some semantic context, but does not explain the expected format or whether it is required beyond the implied use.

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 introspects a routing key and lists specific return details (provider lanes, reachable models, Codex subscription, monthly budget state). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create/list routing keys and usage.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies use when you need details about a specific key, but it does not contrast with sibling tools like list_routing_keys or usage.

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