maritime_get_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns waypoints with coordinates, durations, hazards, and seasonal notes, and the tips add behavioral details about cumulative_days and stop_days. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or error scenarios, which for a read-only data retrieval tool is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 into summary, return description, args, return specification, and tips. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the amount of information needed.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must explain the return format. It does so adequately, listing included fields. The tips provide additional context about waypoint structure. Minor omissions: no mention of error responses or handling invalid route_ids, but overall complete for typical usage.

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 compensates excellently by listing all valid route_id values grouped by company and route, explaining the output_mode parameter with defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves full details of a historical sailing route, specifying verb+resource+scope. The description distinguishes it from siblings like maritime_list_routes (list only) and maritime_estimate_position (position estimation) by focusing on comprehensive route details including waypoints, hazards, and seasonal notes.

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 'Tips for LLMs' section provides explicit guidance on complementary tools (maritime_lookup_location, maritime_estimate_position) and how to use the output for further analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with all siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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