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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the behavioral safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying what configuration data is returned and positioning the tool as a prerequisite for filtering operations.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler: the first packs the full scope of returned configuration into a compact enumeration, and the second states the intended call context. It is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 read-only configuration lookup with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and when to call it. It does not specify the exact response format, but that is a minor gap given the simple metadata nature of the tool.

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%, with the single optional 'org' parameter already documented, including the default behavior and a reference to list_organizations. The tool description adds no further parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as the organization's configuration and enumerates its components: routes, sources, topics, and destinations with their ids and names. It conveys the tool's purpose well, though it relies on a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'describes' or 'lists'.

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?

The description explicitly says to 'Call it before filtering another tool by route, source or destination,' giving clear guidance on when to use it. It does not name specific sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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