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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does convey the key behavior: the tool returns all supported corridors and can optionally include live trip volume for a scoped corridor. However, it does not explain what 'live trip volume' means, whether the data is read-only, or any rate/recency caveats.

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 very short and mostly front-loaded, with the resource type stated first. It is efficient, though the first sentence is a fragment and the scoping behavior could be phrased more precisely, which keeps it from being perfect.

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 low-complexity listing tool with optional parameters and no output schema, and the description gives a reasonable high-level picture. It is incomplete on what fields the route objects contain, what 'live trip volume' looks like, and how country parameters map onto corridor selection.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 'ISO-3166 alpha-2', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only the idea of scoping to a corridor, but it does not clarify how both parameters must be combined for 'one corridor', so it provides no meaningful semantic improvement beyond the baseline.

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 clearly identifies the resource as supported Morocco–Europe corridors and signals that the tool can optionally narrow to one corridor for live trip volume. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_services or get_courier, so it stops short of a 5.

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 shows when optional filtering might apply ('Optionally scope to one corridor for live trip volume') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling tools. There are no alternative tool references or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer routing from the name alone.

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