List Alert Routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds an entitlement/auth gate (Advanced Alert Routing access) that annotations cannot express, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context that matters before invocation. It stops short of noting pagination defaults or result caps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the caveat. The bolded support-contact note is slightly verbose for an agent audience but does not obscure the main statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a 13-parameter filtered list endpoint with zero schema descriptions, the description leaves an agent without enough information to choose among the many filter variants.

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 0% across 13 parameters, and the description only says 'filtering and pagination' without explaining any of them. The distinction between filter_name, filter_name_eq, filter_name_in, filter_name_not_eq, filter_slug_*, and filter_search — or the expected format for sort and page_size bounds — is left entirely undocumented.

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 ('List all alert routes') plus scope ('for the current team'), which cleanly separates it from get_alert_route, create_alert_route, and list_alert_routing_rules. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the plural/team-scoped framing makes the list semantics unambiguous.

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 entitlement note ('requires access to Advanced Alert Routing') is a real prerequisite that helps an agent decide whether the call can succeed at all. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_alert_routing_rules or when to fetch a single route via get_alert_route, so usage is only implied.

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