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

Annotations provide only negative hints (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds no context about duplicate-name handling, validation failures, default routing behavior, or what the created strategy implies operationally. No contradiction with annotations, but also no added disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the action verb comes first, followed by the purpose clause. It is appropriately sized, though the available space could have been used to add usage or behavioral guidance.

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 tool with 6 parameters, a nested routing object, free-form channels/providers configuration objects, and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not say what the call returns, whether the name must be unique, or how channel/provider references relate to existing resources, leaving an agent uncertain about post-creation outcomes.

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 each parameter is already documented inline. The tool description's phrase 'across channels and providers' adds slight reinforcement to the channels and providers objects, but it does not clarify their free-form structure. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('routing strategy'), and the scope ('how notifications are delivered across channels and providers'). This is clearly distinct from get/list/archive_routing_strategy siblings and from other create_* tools (create_provider, create_notification). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from replace_routing_strategy, leaving the create-versus-replace boundary to inference.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives, particularly replace_routing_strategy. It also omits practical context such as prerequisites (e.g., whether referenced channels or providers must already exist) or when a routing strategy is needed versus sending a notification directly.

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