Get all routing plans

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

The description adds functional context (HTTP method and 'Read-only') which complements the `readOnlyHint` annotation. However, since the safety and behavioral profile is already largely covered by the hints, the description adds minimal novel behavioral information.

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 definition is maximally concise, efficiently conveying the core function and constraints (read-only) in a single, direct sentence. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the 100% schema coverage and strong read-only annotations, the tool is functionally complete. A perfect score might require briefly mentioning pagination behavior, but for a basic list tool, it is highly sufficient.

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%, meaning all parameters (page, per_page, response_format) are fully defined within the input schema. The description adds no unique meaning or context to the parameters themselves.

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 the action ('Get all') and the resource ('routing plans'). This is easily distinguishable from sibling functions like 'get_routing_plan' (singular) or 'create_routing_plan' (creation).

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 tool lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus the singular fetch tools available in the sibling list. While the function name implies listing, it doesn't tell the AI if this is the preferred method for discovery or if there are known limitations regarding total plan count or filtering.

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