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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by itemizing the returned policy fields (answer rules, transfers, schedules, transfer targets, spend cap), telling the agent what payload to expect despite there being no output 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 compact sentences with the workflow position front-loaded and the returned content listed immediately after. Nothing is redundant, though the opening 'Step 4: Decide who answers' is slightly cryptic without onboarding context.

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-optional-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies what is most needed: the contents of the routing policy. Only the relationship to ringkit_put_routing and to the onboarding sequence remains implicit.

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 single optional businessId is fully documented in the schema as defaulting to the API key's business. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the routing policy') and enumerates what that policy contains: when the AI answers, transfers, message-taking, schedules, transfer targets, and spend cap. This distinguishes it from the write counterpart ringkit_put_routing, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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?

'Step 4: Decide who answers' places the call in an onboarding/setup sequence, which implies when to use it. However, no exclusions or explicit alternative are named, and an agent must infer that writing the policy requires ringkit_put_routing and that destinations are read via ringkit_list_destinations.

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