get_route_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a read-style operation returning route details, but does not mention what happens for invalid or missing route_ids, permission requirements, or whether cumulative load is computed or stored. The verb 'get' implies read-only, which is reasonable 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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately lists the key output dimensions, making it easy to scan while conveying the essential value of the tool.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description gives enough output detail to understand what the tool returns. However, there is no output schema and no mention of where route_id comes from or when this tool is appropriate, leaving some practical gaps for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 should compensate for the undocumented route_id parameter. It does not mention route_id at all, its origin, or how it relates to plan_routes. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('get') and resource ('route detail') and lists concrete output contents: stop-by-stop sequence, ETA, and cumulative load. It is clear enough to distinguish from list_deliveries and list_vehicles, though it does not explicitly differentiate from export_route_sheet.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as export_route_sheet or evaluate_insertion. The phrase 'planned route' vaguely implies it should be used after route planning, but no explicit condition or alternative is given.

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