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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world profile, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating what the payload contains (entities plus their ids and names), which matters because there is no output schema to describe the return shape.

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, both earning their place: the first enumerates the returned configuration, the second states the calling precondition. The parenthetical example lists are dense but front-load the payload description before the usage instruction.

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 usefully compensates by naming the entity types and the id/name fields returned, and it supplies the sequencing guidance an agent needs. Nothing critical is missing for a simple, read-only discovery 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?

There is a single optional 'org' parameter at 100% schema description coverage, including a pointer to list_organizations, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds no further parameter detail, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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 names the concrete resource set it returns (routes, sources, topics, destinations) and grounds each with examples like 'Stripe, GitHub, Vercel' and 'Slack, Discord, Telegram'. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but the scope is unmistakable and clearly distinct from event-oriented siblings such as search_events or event_stats.

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?

'Call it before filtering another tool by route, source or destination' gives an explicit precondition that tells the agent when to invoke this tool first. It stops short of naming a specific sibling or stating when not to call it, so it is strong context rather than a full when/when-not/alternatives matrix.

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