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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: unconfigured field values are skipped with a reason rather than assigned arbitrarily, a '*' pool absorbs all remaining values including empty ones, and field is null when nothing is configured so every run declines. These are exactly the semantics an agent cannot infer from annotations or 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and dense with useful detail; every sentence carries semantics. The heavy capitalization and long compound sentences make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be, keeping it out of the top band.

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 no output schema, the description adequately conveys the shape of the returned configuration (field, pools, selection, membership) plus edge-case semantics, and it clarifies read-only scope, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum for object_type and the list_crm_connections prerequisite for connection_id. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, 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 (get) and resource (assignment/ownership routing config) and then unpacks exactly what the configuration contains: the deciding field, per-value pools, selection method, and membership. It is clearly distinguishable from set_assignment_config, which it names explicitly as the write counterpart.

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?

Gives a clear usage context ('the only way to know what one would do before it does it' since runs carry no payload) and names the alternative writer tool with an access caveat. It does not explicitly contrast against other read siblings like get_default_rule_config, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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