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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the returned payload is exactly the shape optimize_routes accepts, which tells the agent the output is directly reusable.

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 tight sentences with the output contract front-loaded and the usage instruction second. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description characterizes the return value well enough for downstream use. The remaining gap is that it never tells the agent where valid 'name' values come from, even though list_route_examples is a sibling.

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 coverage is 50%: lang is documented in the schema, but 'name' carries no description anywhere. The parenthetical (depot, stops, vehicles, windows) describes fields of the returned example, not the input parameters, so it doesn't close the gap on what 'name' accepts or where valid values come from.

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 ('return the full input of one example') and pins the output contract to the sibling optimize_routes. This cleanly distinguishes it from get_route_result (results, not inputs) and list_route_examples (many, not one).

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?

Gives a clear workflow: fetch the example, then edit depot/stops/vehicles/windows for the user's situation, implying the example feeds optimize_routes. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a pointer to list_route_examples for discovering valid names.

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