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 goes beyond them by documenting the per-route payload (number, name, source/target, state values active/paused, twoWay, transport, health for today), which tells the agent what it will actually get back. It omits volume/pagination behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, returned fields, and call condition — each earns its place, with the field enumeration especially valuable since there is no output schema. The parenthetical enum hints (state = active, twoWay, transport, health) are dense but readable rather than redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values and does so field by field. It leaves unclear whether results are grouped by route group or returned flat, and whether the list is truncated, which matters for a listing tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no input guidance, but none is needed for a no-argument tool.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ('Показывает маршруты пересылки') and narrows scope to a person and their route group, so an agent knows this is a scoped listing rather than a global one. It never names the closest sibling (route_show) to make the list-vs-single-record distinction explicit, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

'Звать, когда нужно найти маршрут по названию или чатам' gives a clear triggering context, effectively telling the agent to use this as the lookup step. It provides no exclusions and does not say when to prefer route_show instead of listing first, so the guidance is clear but incomplete.

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