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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains that the tool reports whether routes/notifications have been sent, when, and whether they are live, plus optional counts of added/modified/removed routes. It does not detail response granularity or pagination, but adds value beyond the annotation.

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 front-loads the core question and then gives parameter guidance, ending with an API reference. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read-only status tool.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains what status outcomes are returned (sent, when, live-route status, optional change counts). Combined with annotations covering read-only safety and schema covering all parameters, it is nearly complete, though response format or pagination details are absent.

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 meaning beyond the schema by specifying that includeRouteChanges counts routes added, modified, or removed (schema says only 'changed') and reinforces omitting date for the live date. This nuance helps the agent understand the parameter’s effect.

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 resource (dispatch status of routes and customer notifications) and the exact questions it answers: sent status, timing, live-route status, and optional change counts. It distinguishes itself from planning/route siblings by focusing on what has been dispatched to drivers, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides usage guidance for the date parameter (omit for live date) and the optional change counts, but does not state when to choose this over get_planning_status or get_routes. The usage is implied by the status-check purpose rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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