annotate_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 does disclose meaningful side effects ('Les points sont ajoutés au GPX, à la carte et à la fiche') and the effect of `describe` (Wikipedia link via Wikidata), which is valuable. However, it says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or whether re-running overwrites existing points, leaving gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the two following sentences each add distinct information (the `describe` toggle and where the points land). Multi-line layout with an open-ended list is slightly loose, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given moderate complexity and a rich enum schema, the description covers the core behavior plus side effects (GPX, map, fiche). The main omission is the unexplained `max_detour_m`, otherwise complete for calling the tool correctly.

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 must compensate. It explains `describe` well and effectively lists the `categories` values, but says nothing about `max_detour_m` (detour tolerance) or `route_id`, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Liste les points notables le long du tracé, avec leur position au km', then enumerates the point kinds (cascades, rivières, lacs, points de vue, sommets, patrimoine). An agent can distinguish this from find_pois or technical_passages. It does not name a sibling to contrast against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: this annotates an existing route with notable points. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to, or routing to alternatives such as find_pois for standalone POI discovery versus annotate_route for points along a specific tracé. Adequate but leaves the selection to inference.

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