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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the paged nature of the endpoint, the fixed status vocabulary, and the fact that 'full' order inclusion produces a large payload — useful operational signal not present in the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and scope before listing fields and the paging note. No filler, though the field enumeration plus parenthetical endpoint makes it slightly heavy for one sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates returned fields (status, driver, vehicle, timings, distance, cost, GPS, order counts) and covers paging and filtering, so an agent can call it confidently. Minor gaps like auth expectations or default sort order keep it short of a 5.

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 already documents date, limit, offset, status, and include_orders fully. The description only echoes paging ('offset/limit'), adding essentially no semantics beyond the structured fields, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 ('List the routes of one day') plus the underlying endpoint, and enumerates the returned fields so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clearly distinguishable from get_route (single route), list_route_orders (orders of a route), and list_orders.

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?

Usage is implied — enumerate all routes for a given date, optionally filtered by status — and paging is mentioned, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to siblings such as get_route for a single route. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer alternatives.

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