compare_routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Tableau comparatif' strongly implies a read-only operation and lists the comparison dimensions, but it says nothing about permissions, limits, cost of computing, or whether any state is affected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the compared dimensions grouped in parentheses; no filler. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, which slightly weakens immediacy but wastes no space.

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-value detail is not required. For a simple one-parameter read tool the description is minimally adequate, but the absence of usage guidance and of any sibling differentiation leaves gaps an agent must infer.

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%, but there is only a single parameter (route_ids). The description's 'plusieurs itinéraires' corroborates multiplicity but adds nothing about accepted identifiers or the 2-10 item bounds that the schema already defines.

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 names a specific operation (comparative table of several itineraries) and enumerates the dimensions compared (distance, elevation gain, duration, asphalt, marked trails, overlap, difficulty, validation), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool compare_with_reference, which is the nearest alternative.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as compare_with_reference or compute_stats. The plural 'plusieurs itinéraires' only weakly implies the multi-route use case that the schema's minItems=2 already encodes.

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