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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, and the description supplements that with a genuinely important behavior: webhook URLs are redacted to host because they embed delivery tokens, with the full URL only in the portal/CLI. This pre-empts an agent wondering why URLs look truncated. It does not cover pagination behavior, though the schema handles page/page_size.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, then the redaction caveat, then the routing pointer. The type enumeration is slightly long but directly supports purpose clarity, so little is wasted.

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 read-only list tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the resource is, what the results look like (redacted URLs), and how to use the ids. Nothing critical is missing, though no return-shape summary is offered.

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 page, search, enabled and page_size are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail about them, so the baseline 3 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 (List) and resource (alert destinations), then enumerates the concrete destination types (Slack, Teams, Discord, PagerDuty, custom webhooks). This distinguishes it cleanly from list_notification_routes and create_alert in the sibling set.

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 closing sentence directs the agent to use returned ids with notification route tools, which orients downstream usage. However it gives no explicit when-not or an alternative list tool to prefer under other conditions.

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