get_route_by_id

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

The description discloses that it is a read-only operation and mentions the required scope for private routes, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It omits details on response format, error handling, or rate limits, leaving some uncertainty. The disclosed information adds context but is not comprehensive.

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?

The description is well-structured with separate Endpoint and Description sections, concise, and front-loads the core purpose. There is slight redundancy with the title 'Get Route' and the opening line, but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple GET-by-id tool, the description covers the essential purpose, endpoint, scope, and read-only nature. However, it does not describe the returned route object structure or possible error scenarios, which could be important for correct usage. Since there is no output schema, the description carries more responsibility for completeness than it fulfills.

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?

The schema fully describes the id parameter with a clear description ('The identifier of the route.') and 100% coverage. The description merely restates 'using its identifier' without adding new semantic details such as constraints, format nuances, or usage examples. It provides no value beyond what the schema already offers.

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 clearly states the action: 'Returns a route using its identifier.' The verb and resource are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_route_as_gpx or get_route_streams, though it does not explicitly name them. It distinguishes itself well enough for an agent to understand it fetches the route object itself.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternative route-related tools (e.g., get_route_as_gpx, get_route_streams). It only mentions a scope requirement for private routes, which is a permission constraint rather than a decision guide. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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