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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the four defaults (priority 100, include mode, enabled, no stop-on-match) and the constraint that webhook destinations cannot be created here because their URLs are credentials. It does not address duplicate-creation/idempotency behavior, which idempotentHint=false makes relevant.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by an example, defaults, and destination sourcing. Every sentence is informative, though the create_alert_destination parenthetical is slightly tangential to the core action.

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?

For a 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the defaults, how to source the required destination_id, and how to verify the result. It omits the return value and duplicate-handling behavior, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by showing how filters combine in a worked example (kind pipeline_run_failed + application_id + reference_pattern 'main') and by naming the filter dimensions collectively. It does not restate each parameter, relying on the schema for field-level detail.

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+resource ('Create a notification route') and immediately defines what a route does: deliver notifications matching kind/severity/cluster/source/application/reference filters to an existing alert destination. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_notification_route, delete_notification_route, preview_notification_routing and test_notification_route.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives and prerequisites: use list_alert_destinations to pick an existing destination, create_alert_destination for Slack/Teams channels, portal/CLI for webhooks, and preview_notification_routing to verify. It also gives a concrete when-to-use scenario (one application's default-branch CI failures).

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