data_quality

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 the analysis dimensions (altimetry, difficulty, OSM freshness, path adherence), which tells the agent this is a non-mutating analysis operation, but it says nothing about permissions, cost, or what happens when a route fails the check.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the scoring purpose and using parentheticals to enumerate the checked dimensions. No filler, though the clause chain makes it slightly heavy to parse.

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 no explanation, and the one-parameter surface is simple. Still, for a tool whose boundary with validate_route is unclear, the description should say how the two differ; that gap is what keeps it at minimum viability.

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% and the single route_id parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The reference to 'une trace importée' hints at the input domain but never clarifies what route_id must identify (a stored route, an imported trace, its format).

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 concrete outputs — a data confidence score (altimetry, declared difficulty, OSM freshness) and a check that the track follows mapped paths — so the agent knows what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling validate_route, which plausibly covers similar ground, nor from compute_stats.

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 via the parenthetical 'indispensable pour une trace importée', which hints this matters for imported GPX traces but never states the condition explicitly or names alternatives like validate_route. It is inferable context rather than real when/when-not guidance.

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