get_routing

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description does not need to restate it. It adds useful context about the response scope, including that forwardings can be active or timeout, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or how the optional user_id affects the routing portion. This is modest added context, not a rich behavioral profile.

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 sentence front-loads the action ('Return') and packs the full scope into a compact list. There is no filler or repetition of annotation details.

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 output schema, the description is the primary source for return-value semantics, and it enumerates the main data categories: routing, phonelines, assigned numbers, and forwardings. It stops short of explaining terms like 'endpoint' or the exact behavior when user_id is omitted, but for a read-only retrieval tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete.

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 only parameter, user_id, is already fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('Limit phoneline forwarding details to one sipgate user ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics; the baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 uses the explicit verb 'Return' followed by a specific composite resource: number-to-endpoint routing, per-user phonelines, assigned numbers, and active/timeout forwardings. This content clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_numbers, list_users, and set_number_routing, which cover narrower or mutating operations.

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving routing and forwarding configuration, but it never states when to choose it over get_settings, list_numbers, or list_users, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The usage context is inferable but not explicit.

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