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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: delivery is asynchronous, so check the channel, and the caller needs alerts.write. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded and compact: the main action is stated first, followed by two short clauses on delivery mode and permissions. Every sentence earns its place, including the CLI-twin reference for cross-tool recognition.

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 one-parameter asynchronous test tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers destination variants, async delivery, and required permission. 'Check the channel' is slightly imprecise, but no output schema exists and the core invocation is clear.

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%, and route_id is already documented as a UUID from list_notification_routes. The description names the route destination but adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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: queue a sample notification through a notification route's destination to prove delivery. The webhook/push distinction adds scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the nearest MCP sibling, preview_notification_routing, instead naming the CLI twin.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: to prove the route delivers, including the webhook case and push case to caller devices. It does not name when-not to use it or an alternative MCP tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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