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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by naming the exact consequence ('This makes that date the live routes and CANNOT be unsent'), disclosing a per-tool default that diverges from the vendor default, and documenting the ERR_NOTHING_TO_SEND failure mode. These are precisely the operational traits an agent needs before committing a destructive dispatch.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the irreversible consequence, then the default divergence, the error case, and the verification step — each sentence carries new, actionable information with no filler.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect, irreversibility, parameter default trap, error code, and the sibling used to verify success. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the contrast between this tool's false default and OptimoRoute's own true default, plus the consequence of flipping it (email/SMS per Order Tracking settings). The date parameter's meaning is left to 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 and resource ('Dispatch the routes for a date to the drivers' mobile app') and anchors it to a known UI action ('the web app's Send Routes'). An agent can immediately distinguish this from read-side siblings like optimoroute_get_routes or optimoroute_get_dispatch_status.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use it (dispatch a date's routes), when to deviate from the default ('set it true only when you mean to email/SMS customers'), and routes the agent to the follow-up check ('Confirm with optimoroute_get_dispatch_status'). The irreversibility statement also functions as a strong pre-condition warning.

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