MyRouteOnline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the return condition ('when complete') and authentication modes, but does not disclose behavior when the job is incomplete, error handling, or polling semantics. This is a moderate 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 concise sentences; the key purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds relevant information. No filler or redundancy.

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 states the main return value (optimized route) and covers authentication. It is sufficient for a simple polling tool, though more detail on non-complete states or result format would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly defining the authentication alternatives (otpCode+otpEmail vs mroApiKey) and indicating jobToken comes from startOptimization, enriching the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool checks the status and results of a route optimization job, using 'Check' as the verb and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like startOptimization (which starts jobs) and emailResults (which emails results).

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 implies the tool is used after startOptimization by referencing the jobToken returned from that function, and clarifies authentication choices. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and the inclusion of navigation links, which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., email delivery failures, rate limits), permission needs, or whether the OTP is consumed. The behavioral disclosure is average, not extensive.

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?

The description is two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and object, the second states the authentication requirement. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is concise yet sufficient for a straightforward email-sending tool with a well-documented schema. It includes purpose and auth, while the schema covers parameters. It could briefly mention that the optimization must be completed first, but the jobToken description already implies that. Overall, it provides enough context for tool selection and invocation.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates the authentication options that are already documented in the properties.

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 clearly states the action ('Email'), the resource ('optimized route results with navigation links'), and the recipient ('specified email address'). It distinctly separates this tool from its siblings (checkOptimization, getOneTimeCode, startOptimization) by identifying the email-sending step.

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 implies usage after optimization by referencing 'optimized route results' and requires a 'jobToken from completed optimization' in the schema. It also provides explicit authentication options (otpCode+otpEmail or mroApiKey). However, it does not explicitly state 'use after checkOptimization confirms completion' or exclude alternative flows.

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

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

The description discloses that the code is sent via email and that it is a prerequisite, but it does not mention response format, delivery time, potential errors, or rate limits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden, and while it gives some context, it lacks depth regarding side effects and failure modes.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and promptly stating the prerequisite role. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description is adequate for understanding its role as an authentication prerequisite, but it does not specify what the agent should expect after the request (e.g., a success indicator or whether a new code invalidates previous ones). This is a minor gap in completeness.

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%, with the parameter 'loginEmail' already described as 'Email address to receive the one-time code.' The description adds little beyond the schema, mentioning 'via email' but not providing additional semantic detail about the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Request' and a clear resource 'one-time authentication code sent via email.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools (checkOptimization, emailResults, startOptimization) by focusing on authentication rather than optimization or results.

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 phrase 'This code is required for all other operations' provides clear context that this tool must be used before other operations, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. This is clear context without exclusions, fitting a score of 4.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal the two authentication modes (otpCode+otpEmail or mroApiKey), which is valuable. However, it does not mention that starting an optimization job is likely asynchronous, what the return value is, or how to track progress via checkOptimization.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place. The first states the primary purpose, the second covers authentication. No filler or redundant information.

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?

This tool initiates a long-running job, but the description omits crucial context about the response format, whether it returns immediately or blocks, and how to check the job status (sibling tool exists). The lack of an output schema and annotations increases the need for these details, making the description adequate but incomplete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of all parameters with meaningful descriptions. The description's note about 'either otpCode+otpEmail or mroApiKey' redundantly states what the schema already explains via conditional requirements. No additional format or constraint details are added.

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 uses a specific verb 'Start' with a clear object 'route optimization job' and qualifier 'with multiple addresses', immediately distinguishing it from siblings like checkOptimization, emailResults, and getOneTimeCode. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 clearly states the core action and authentication options, implying when to use this tool (to start a job) versus siblings like checkOptimization (to check status). However, it does not explicitly exclude other contexts or mention alternatives beyond the obvious distinction.

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