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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reads a local business day route, focuses on high driving-risk stops, and deliberately omits addresses and private route notes. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the privacy-preserving behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Reads a local business day route and high driving-risk stops') and adds the privacy qualifier without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the essential context: what is read, the scope (authenticated workspace), and what is intentionally excluded. It could mention pagination or the meaning of 'high driving-risk stops' in more detail, but the annotations and schema cover the rest.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (date, limit, technician_id). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the overall output scope (route and high-risk stops), which indirectly helps interpret the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool reads a local business day route and high driving-risk stops, and explicitly notes it does not expose addresses or private route notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like complaint-recall-risk or customer-service-requests, which focus on different risk/request domains.

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 implies this is for retrieving route and driving-risk data for the authenticated workspace, and the privacy note ('without exposing addresses or private route notes') gives context on what it is safe to use for. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the sibling list and the specific scope make the usage context reasonably clear.

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