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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the mutual-exclusion rule for the two identifiers, but says nothing about freshness of GPS, auth scope, or error behavior.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the payload summary followed by the identifier rule. The parenthetical pseudo-path (GET /Route/Code|Id/{…}) is slightly cryptic but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates what will be returned, which is the main completeness requirement. It omits guidance on identifier choice and result freshness, minor gaps for a read-only fetch.

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 schema itself documents route_id, route_code and include_orders with enum meanings. The description restates the exactly-one-of constraint, adding a small amount of value but no detail the schema lacks.

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 one route') and enumerates the returned payload (status, driver, vehicle, timings, distance, cost, GPS, orders), clearly distinguishing it from list_routes and get_route_track.

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 the key usage constraint (exactly one of route_code or route_id) but never explains when to choose route_code vs route_id, nor when to prefer get_route_track or list_route_orders instead.

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