ITA routing language reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns—a comprehensive syntax reference. It discloses the scope of content covered, which is the key behavioral trait for a documentation tool. It doesn't detail the output format, but the nature of a reference makes that less critical.

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 two sentences with a front-loaded title and a concise list of topics. Every word earns its place, and the 'Read this before...' directive adds practical utility without bloat.

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?

The description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope for a simple zero-parameter reference. It doesn't enumerate every syntax detail, but that's expected—the tool itself provides the full syntax. It's complete enough to guide invocations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description instead explains what the reference covers, which is useful context beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 identifies the tool as providing the full syntax for the 'routing' and 'extraCodes' fields, listing specific topics like carrier pinning, alliances, and exclusions. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools, establishing it as a reference/documentation resource.

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 explicitly advises reading this before composing a non-trivial routing code, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternative tools, but the context of siblings makes its purpose unambiguous.

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