Get all routings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the appended "Read-only." adds no new information. The only added context is the HTTP verb/path mapping; nothing is said about pagination behavior, the fact that per_page is not honored everywhere, or result ordering.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The size is appropriate, though the terseness shades into under-specification rather than disciplined concision given the tool's sibling ambiguity.

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?

With a fully documented schema, zero required parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. It is incomplete in that it never clarifies the scope of "all routings" relative to routing-plan routings, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 all five parameters (page, per_page, response_format, and both updated_at filters) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing beyond that, which is the baseline case for full-coverage schemas.

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 ("Get all routings") plus the underlying endpoint GET /routings, so the operation itself is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as placetel_list_routing_plan_routings or placetel_get_routing, leaving the agent to infer that this is the flat, account-wide routing list.

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 guidance on when to use this versus placetel_list_routing_plan_routings (routings scoped to one plan) or placetel_get_routing (single record). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of how the updated_at filters should be applied to narrow results.

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