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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true; the description supplies the operative detail the annotation cannot - exactly what is destroyed (existing routes for the date) and the parameter combination that prevents it. It also discloses the async contract (returns a planningId to poll) and the cancellation path, which is behavior an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Five tight sentences, each carrying distinct load: scope, destructive default and its mitigation, async return contract, lifecycle routing, and the API endpoint. The highest-stakes constraint (replacement of routes) is front-loaded.

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 14-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the points an agent cannot infer: destructive default, preservation path, async polling flow, and downstream/cleanup tools. Remaining parameter nuance is fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema does not: the interaction between startWith and lockType (CURRENT + lockType to preserve routes). That is genuinely more than the per-field schema text, though it covers only a subset of the 14 parameters.

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 ('Start OptimoRoute's route optimization for a date') with the exact scope (single date vs dateRange for weekly planning). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_planning_status, get_routes, and stop_planning, which it names as part of the lifecycle.

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 tells the agent when the destructive default applies ('startWith EMPTY, existing routes for that date are REPLACED') and how to avoid it ('use startWith CURRENT (+ lockType) to keep them'). It also routes the agent through the full workflow: poll with get_planning_status, read with get_routes, cancel with stop_planning.

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