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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are already present. The description adds value by specifying the exact outputs: frozen corridor, ranked detour shelf, adjacent drives, and plan URL, plus a note about zero Mapbox cost. No contradictions 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?

The description contains four sentences but the first sentence about coverage is superfluous and seems like marketing. The rest is functional but could be more streamlined.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and usage restrictions. It lacks explicit authentication or rate limit info, but annotations cover idempotency and read-only nature.

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?

Only one parameter (slug) with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add further explanation beyond 'Published /drives slug.' Baseline is 3; no extra value provided.

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 title 'Get one published Roamward drive' and description 'Returns the frozen corridor...' clearly state a specific verb and resource. However, the opening sentence about coverage is distracting and doesn't clarify the tool's purpose. Sibling tools like list_drives and plan_drive help differentiate.

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 description includes usage constraints: 'For individual-assistant use with attribution' and licensing terms for bulk/commercial use. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over siblings like list_drives or search_stops.

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