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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's added value is the behavioral detail: the polyline is 'large', the ordered stop list carries scheduled times, and dispatch status means 'sent to its driver, and changed since'. That is genuine context beyond the annotation, though pagination, result size caps, and missing-data behavior (e.g. no planned routes for a date) are not addressed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, followed by the optional extras and the underlying API endpoint. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 return values, and it does so reasonably well: it names the per-driver/vehicle aggregates and the ordered stop structure with times. What is missing is edge-case behavior (empty result for a date with no plan) and any hint of result volume.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds the useful grouping of these as optional filters ('one driver or vehicle') versus optional includes ('encoded polyline, start/end locations and dispatch status'), but adds no format or precedence 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+resource ('Get the planned routes') scoped to 'one date', and enumerates what the result contains (per driver/vehicle: duration, distance, loads, ordered stops with scheduled times). This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_orders or get_dispatch_status without opening any 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 'for one date' scoping and the optional filter/include flags imply the intended usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no naming of alternatives (e.g. when to prefer get_orders vs get_routes, or get_dispatch_status vs includeDispatchStatus). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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