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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and the update-time filter, which is useful context, but says nothing about ordering, result size, or what the returned settings/time settings look like.

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 compact sentences plus the endpoint, front-loaded with the resource and its meaning, and the update-time filter is stated immediately after. Nothing is wasted.

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?

As a read-only list endpoint with full schema coverage, no output schema, and per-page hints already in the schema, the description covers enough to call it correctly. Minor gap: it doesn't hint at what the returned settings entail, though that is a small omission for a list 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 page, per_page, updated_since, and updated_until fully documented in the schema. The description's "Filter by update time" merely echoes those fields, so baseline 3 is appropriate – no additional format or semantics are contributed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List routing objects") and adds a parenthetical that explains what a routing is (forward, group, routing plan, IVR, queue, voicemail, API), which clearly separates it from generic list tools. It doesn't directly name siblings like placetel_get_routing or placetel_list_routing_plans, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

"Filter by update time" and the underlying GET /routings endpoint imply the usage context (bulk retrieval with incremental sync), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when to prefer placetel_get_routing for a single object, and no mention of pagination strategy beyond what the schema carries.

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