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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it clarifies that no new checks are executed and, importantly, that absent or stale evidence must not be read as uptime or outage — a non-obvious interpretation rule an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The most consequential constraint (no new checks, don't infer uptime) comes early. Slightly clipped to the point of under-specification, but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at the shape of what comes back (what fields constitute a sampled check, timestamps, staleness markers) and it does not. It also never says what happens with the default invocation of zero parameters — all routes? a default limit? Adequate, but incomplete for a tool whose whole value is interpreting evidence freshness.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only supplies the slug convention for provider and model; 'limit' is left ambiguous (a limit on what — routes, checks, samples?), and the locale enum's effect on returned evidence is never explained. Two of four parameters remain semantically opaque.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it reads existing sampled checks for public catalog routes, rather than computing anything new. That distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings (estimate_cost, export_keyless_config, search_models). It loses a point because the tool name ('get_route_status') implies a broader status object than what is described, and the description never says what a 'route' is keyed by.

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?

'No new checks run' plus the warning about missing/stale evidence implies the intended use: consult previously collected evidence rather than trigger a live probe. However, no sibling alternative is named for the case where the agent wants a fresh assessment, and there is no statement of when this tool should be skipped.

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