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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by naming exactly what is destroyed (existing routes for that date are REPLACED under the default) and by disclosing the asynchronous contract (returns a planningId that must be polled). It does not mention permission/plan-gating beyond 'if the plan allows', which is a minor gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the destructive default before the alternative and the lifecycle. Every clause carries operational information.

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 async mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential missing pieces: the return value (planningId), the polling path, and the cancellation path. It does not explain the async failure/timeout behavior, but the core call-correctness information is present.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics: the startWith/lockType interaction and the destructive consequence of the EMPTY default, which the schema documents only as isolated enum values. It leaves the other twelve parameters to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 precise verb+resource ('Start OptimoRoute's route optimization') with the scope ('for a date (or a dateRange for weekly planning, if the plan allows)'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like optimoroute_stop_planning and optimoroute_get_planning_status, which it names directly.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not guidance: default startWith EMPTY replaces existing routes, while startWith CURRENT (+ lockType) keeps them. It also names the follow-up alternatives (get_planning_status to poll, get_routes to read, stop_planning to cancel), so the agent knows the full operational sequence.

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