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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description need only add context beyond that. It does so by naming the backing endpoint (GET /routing_plans) and enumerating the fields returned (name, description, ring duration, object counts), which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource gloss and returned fields, plus the endpoint path. Nothing is padded, though the trailing 'GET /routing_plans' is near-redundant with the tool name.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece: the shape of the returned records. The remaining gap is any hint about how this differs from the sibling list_routings 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 coverage is 100% and both pagination parameters carry detailed descriptions, including the 'keep paging until a page is empty' caveat, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about paging or limits beyond what is already in the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource and goes further by glossing the resource as 'time-based call distribution plans', which an agent could not infer from the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish this from the confusingly similar sibling placetel_list_routings, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus placetel_list_routings or placetel_get_routing, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name that this is a browse/list operation for a distinct resource type.

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