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

Annotations only cover read-only/idempotent/openWorld; the description adds real data-quality context the annotations cannot: failed, truncated or outline geometry must not be used for navigation, times are estimates, and there is no live safety or opening guarantee. For a mountain-route tool these caveats materially change how an agent should present the output.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource, and identifier source, then the field list, then caveats. It is dense but every clause adds signal; the only mild clutter is the semi-colon-free field enumeration that runs long.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, yet the description still previews the payload and covers the safety caveats well. The gap is includeDescription's effect on the response, which nothing in the definition explains.

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 67%, and the description's only parameter-related contribution is noting that routeId originates from get_peak, which the schema already says. The third parameter, includeDescription, is left undocumented in both the schema and the description and is never explained.

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 route), the exact identifiers needed (peak slug + routeId), and enumerates the payload (grade, equipment, key passages, stages, trailhead, timing, confidence, geometry QA). That field list makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_route_briefs and get_route_point.

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?

It tells the agent that routeId comes from get_peak, which routes the caller to the right upstream tool, but it never states when to prefer this over get_route_briefs, get_route_point, or search_routes, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than declared.

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