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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is free, authenticated, nonpersistent, and creates no route/order/checkout/payment, but it does not cover rate limits, idempotency, return behavior, or other operational constraints expected for a complex planning tool.

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 is two tightly written sentences with no wasted words, and the key property (nonpersistent preview) is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, even if the overall definition is under-specified elsewhere.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, nested policy objects, only 10% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description states the high-level safety profile but leaves critical context missing, especially around parameters, outputs, and usage relative to siblings.

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?

The schema has only 10% description coverage across 10 parameters, many of them nested and policy-sensitive. The description provides no parameter-level meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 resource and mode: a nonpersistent route preview using the deterministic planner. It distinguishes itself from route-creating siblings by saying it creates no route, order, checkout, or payment, though it does not name the relevant sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'route preview' and 'creates no route' suggest it is for previewing before using a persistent route tool. However, the description never names alternatives such as route_work or explains exactly when to choose this tool over them.

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