Get Alert Routing Rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as error handling for an unknown id or response characteristics, but the lower bar set by full annotations makes a 3 appropriate.

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, purpose first, caveat second, zero filler. The support escalation is arguably noise but it is compact and clearly marked as a note.

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?

With a full input schema, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description supplies what is needed to invoke it. It stops short of explaining not-found behavior or whether the advanced-user caveat should make an agent prefer get_alert_route, which is a modest remaining gap.

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 100% and the schema itself explains UUID-vs-slug formats and the naming pitfall. The description only says 'by id', adding nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: retrieves a specific alert routing rule by id. The note about the Alert Routes endpoint distinguishes it from the sibling get_alert_route/list_alert_routes, though the differentiation is hedged on user type rather than concrete data.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('use the Alert Routes endpoint instead') and the condition (advanced alert routing user), which is more than most definitions offer. The fallback ('contact Rootly customer support') is not actionable for an agent and leaves the decision unresolved, keeping it from a 5.

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