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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds meaningful context about what the response contains (delivery state, rules in application order, schedule with quiet hours). It does not mention error behavior for unknown or foreign route IDs, which is the main remaining gap for a lookup tool.

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 core action, then a structured bracket list of returned sections. It is dense but every clause names a concrete part of the route, so little is wasted; a slight cost is that it is a single very long sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so thoroughly: endpoints, enabled flag, settings, schedule, delivery state, and ordered rules. Only failure modes and whether the rules list is truncated are left unspecified.

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 100% and the single routeId parameter is already documented, including its origin from routes.list. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Показывает один маршрут целиком') and immediately differentiates it from the list-style sibling routes_list by scoping it to a single route. The parenthetical enumeration of what the full view contains makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description says it shows one route in full, which suggests it is the follow-up to routes_list, but it never explicitly says when to use it instead of routes_list or the many route_set_* tools. The routeId schema note routing agents to routes.list partially compensates, but that is schema content, not description guidance.

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