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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation by explaining that the response includes status codes N, R, C, F, E and a percentageComplete field, and by naming the underlying OptimoRoute endpoint GET /get_planning_status.

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 a single tightly structured sentence followed by the API endpoint. It front-loads the purpose and status codes with no redundant or wasted wording.

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?

For a simple read-only status-check tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough. It identifies the source of the planningId, explains the returned status codes and percentageComplete, and names the endpoint.

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 parameter planningId is already documented as the value returned by optimoroute_start_planning. The description reinforces that the ID comes from a planning run started with optimoroute_start_planning, but adds no format, range, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb (Check) and resource (planning / route optimization run), and explicitly ties it to the sibling tool optimoroute_start_planning. It also enumerates the exact status values (N, R, C, F, E) and percentageComplete, making 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?

The description clearly indicates the tool is used to check a planning run started with optimoroute_start_planning, giving the key usage context. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it or mention alternative tools such as optimoroute_stop_planning, so it falls short of full guidance.

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