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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether authentication is required, or if there are any limits or ordering. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 a single sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the action ('Show') followed by the target ('all routing rules'). Every element earns its place—the parenthetical clarifies the rule format without extra fluff.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It tells the user what the tool does and what the rules look like (event → action). It does not mention output format or pagination, but given the simplicity, these are likely not needed. Sibling names further contextualize its role.

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 are zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered by default. The description's 'all' reinforces that no filtering parameters exist. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate, and the description adds a bit of semantic color by clarifying the rule structure.

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 states a specific verb 'Show' and a specific resource 'all routing rules', with an explanatory parenthetical '(event → Conductor action)' that describes the content. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like create_rule (creation) and event_log (event logs).

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 clearly implies the tool is for viewing routing rules, which is a distinct use case from creating rules (create_rule) or checking events (event_log). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative names, though the zero-parameter simplicity makes the usage context fairly obvious.

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