Get Live Call Router

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 by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on not-found behavior, no indication that it reads live state, no mention of permissions. Since annotations carry the load, this is a minimal addition rather than a contradiction.

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 zero filler; the purpose and retrieval key come first. It is efficient, though the terseness comes partly from omitting useful context rather than from disciplined editing alone.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, fully described in schema, output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile), so the description need not explain return values or behavior in depth. What remains missing is minor routing context relative to the create/update/list siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% and the id property is already well documented, including the explicit disambiguation note that there is no `live_call_router_id` argument. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond 'by id', 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 (retrieves) and resource (Live Call Router) with the retrieval key (by id), so an agent can tell this apart from list/create/update siblings by the 'specific ... by id' scoping. It stops short of naming the siblings explicitly, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' signals a single-resource fetch, which implicitly contrasts with list_live_call_routers, but the description never says when to use this vs the list tool or what to do if you lack an id. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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