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

Beyond the annotations, the definition discloses the error contract: it never raises a protocol error and instead returns {"error": ...}. It also adds retry guidance and a cost signal (“FREE”). The one repeated line about read-only and idempotent behavior is fine because the rest adds substantive context.

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 purpose and the “FREE” signal are placed early, and every sentence adds useful information. The inline example response is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, which keeps it from earning a 5.

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?

The definition fully covers an agent's needs for a single required parameter: purpose, accepted inputs, usage, error behavior, and retry semantics. The output schema and annotations 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 coverage is 100%, but the description still adds value: it shows the typical call shape, {"solution": <result of route_plan_fleet>}, and it explains which solver results are accepted and how they are recognized. That goes beyond the schema's generic “result object returned by one of this server's solve tools.”

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 definition uses a concrete verb and resource: a “plain-language summary of a solution from this server.” It lists the exact solver outputs it recognizes (route_plan, route_plan_fleet, pack_bins, and others), so an agent can tell it apart from every sibling without opening a schema.

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 states the use case directly: turning solver output into a message for a dispatcher or a shop floor. It also gives the key exclusion, “Not a re-solve,” and it constrains the input to results from this server's solve tools.

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