origin_chart_atlas_route

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It simply states the tool 'chooses a route' without indicating side effects, return type, or whether it is read-only. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be expanded slightly for better clarity without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), return values need not be detailed. However, the description does not explain what a 'route' is, how it relates to the chart atlas, or how the result should be used. More context would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'intent' parameter by linking it to a 'semantic chart intent', but provides no details about 'columns' or 'matrix'. Partial contribution, but incomplete.

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 uses the specific verb 'choose' and resource 'recommended plot route' for a 'semantic chart intent', clearly indicating the tool selects a route. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'origin_plot_chart_atlas', which might perform the actual plotting.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'origin_plot_chart_atlas' or 'origin_plot_type_coverage'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or workflow integration.

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