plan_routes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (per-vehicle stop sequence, ETA, distance, duration, unassigned deliveries with reasons) and the important side effect that the plan is persisted. It does not mention overwrite behavior or computational cost, but the core behavior is 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 tight and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, one for outputs, one for side effect. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 covers the tool's core purpose, outputs, and persistence side effect. However, it omits parameter semantics and when-to-use guidance relative to sibling planning tools, leaving an agent to infer important details about optional inputs and behavior for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It mentions 'date' inline but does not explain objective, vehicle_ids, or traffic_factor beyond what the schema already provides. The enum values and the filtering semantics of vehicle_ids remain unclear.

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 and resource: 'Plan routes for the fleet on a date' and identifies the problem type (CVRPTW). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_route_detail, evaluate_insertion, and export_route_sheet by focusing on plan creation.

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 implies usage when fleet routes need to be computed for a date, and the note about persisting the plan hints at a side effect, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like evaluate_insertion or commit_insertion. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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