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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by stating it returns metadata only, scopes to the workspace, and clarifies that the response is meant to yield strategy IDs. This goes beyond a bare mutation/read classification, though it does not cover pagination behavior beyond what the schema already describes.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and each sentence earns its place. It defines the resource, states the metadata-only return nature, gives domain context, and points to the sibling tool without redundancy.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and readOnlyHint annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the result is for, what it returns, and how it relates to get_routing_strategy. No critical information needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already fully documents limit and cursor, including defaults, caps, and the opaque-token warning. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the workspace's routing strategies', and immediately clarifies scope with 'returning metadata only'. It also distinguishes the tool from get_routing_strategy by explaining that this tool produces the rs_-prefixed ID needed for the full definition, so an agent can tell the two apart without inspecting schemas.

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 gives explicit usage context: use this tool to find the strategy ID required by get_routing_strategy, while implying that the full definition belongs to the sibling call. This is clear when-to-use guidance and routes the agent to the correct alternative.

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