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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond that — results are ordered by arrival and scoped to a single route — but says nothing about failure modes, unknown ids, or result size, which is the expected baseline when annotations carry the safety burden.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary retrieval and appending the route/order payload without filler. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the annotations cover safety. The description is sufficient for a single-parameter read lookup; the only minor gap is that it does not mention what happens for an invalid or unknown pointId.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it partially does: it establishes that pointId is a collection-point id and that valid values originate from find_nearby_points or search_points. It does not restate the string format or length constraint, but the origin hint is meaningful added value over the bare schema.

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 ('Get one collection point by id') and goes further to define the payload: every stop on the same route in arrival order. It also names the sibling tools that produce valid ids, so an agent can distinguish it from find_nearby_points/search_points 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 explicitly routes the agent: the id must come 'from find_nearby_points or search_points', which tells the caller when this tool is the right next step. It stops short of any exclusion or when-not-to-use condition, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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