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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the polyline is large and that dispatch status reveals whether a route was sent and changed since, but it omits pagination, rate limits, or behavior for dates with no planned routes.

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 tight sentences plus a short endpoint reference; the return contents and filtering options are front-loaded with no padding. The trailing 'OptimoRoute: GET /get_routes.' is low-value but harmless.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (per-driver/vehicle metrics plus ordered stops and scheduled times). Coverage is good for a 7-parameter read tool, though pagination and empty-result behavior are unstated.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description groups the parameters into filters (driver/vehicle) versus include-toggles (polyline, start/end, dispatch status), which clarifies intent but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (Get) and resource (planned routes) scoped to one date, and enumerates exactly what comes back (duration, distance, loads, ordered stops with scheduled times). This distinguishes it from siblings like optimoroute_get_dispatch_status or optimoroute_get_orders without needing the schema.

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 single-date scope and optional driver/vehicle filtering imply when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. An agent must infer the boundary against tools such as get_dispatch_status or get_completion_details that overlap on route data.

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