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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the response including rival reconstructions with separate scores, but it does not go deeper into data provenance, pagination, or other runtime behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose and key detail are front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows naturally. Every sentence 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 list tool with one optional locale parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, that scoring is included, and when to call it before fetching a specific route.

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 only parameter, 'locale', is fully documented in the schema with its enum, meaning, and default value (schema coverage 100%). The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('reconstructed itineraries'), and adds a distinguishing detail: rival reconstructions are scored separately. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_homeric_route, list_homeric_episodes, and list_homeric_places.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this to see which voyages the atlas reconstructs before fetching one.' It implies contrast with a singular fetch tool, though it does not formally name an alternative or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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