explain_routing_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail – that rules are returned in order – and enumerates the returned components. Beyond that it adds little behavioral context, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and packs the three returned artifacts without filler. Nothing to trim.

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 no inputs, full annotation coverage, and an output schema documenting the return shape, the description only needs to say what the tool is for, which it does. Minor gap: it doesn't say whose policy (enterprise scope) is returned, though the mention of 'enterprise threshold' implies it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resources returned: ordered routing rules, policy version, and enterprise threshold. This clearly separates it from siblings like preview_route and get_routing_case. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 explicit 'use this when' guidance and no named alternatives, but the wording ('policy', 'threshold', 'version') implies this is a policy-introspection call rather than a route evaluation. The distinction from preview_route is left to inference.

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