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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds behavior beyond that: results come back in driving order, page size is capped at 10, and the payload contains personal data that should be paged conservatively. The privacy caution is genuinely valuable context not available in structured fields.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the privacy/paging constraint and the endpoint. No sentence is wasted.

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 read-only, paginated list tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers ordering, page limits, and the PII caution. With no output schema, it could have said more about what a stop record contains, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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 75% and the schema already documents page_token, max_page_size, and recipient_external_id; route_id has no schema description. The description only reinforces the route scope and the 10-item page cap, adding little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (List) plus resource (stops) and constrains scope to a single route in driving order, which separates it from spoke_list_plan_stops and spoke_list_unassigned_stops. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Page only as far as needed" gives a usage constraint tied to the personal-data warning, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over spoke_list_plan_stops or spoke_search_stops, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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