find_hiking_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. It hints at result content and ordering (most important to most local) but says nothing about how many trails come back, whether the radius bounds results, or any rate/permission constraints beyond what the schema bounds imply.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with what is returned before the usage note. Efficient and free of filler, though slightly terse given the parameter gaps.

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 needn't be re-explained, and the purpose/usage are covered. However, for a geo-search with four undocumented parameters and no annotations, the missing explanation of radius and limit leaves a real gap.

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 description only implicitly maps to lat/lon via 'à proximité d'un lieu'. The limit and radius_km parameters are never explained in either schema or description, so the agent gets no semantic guidance for half the parameters.

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+resource (find hiking/marked trails — GR, GRP, PR, local) with clear scope: proximity-based results ordered from international/national down to local. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling route_between, so an agent can tell them apart without opening both schemas.

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 second paragraph gives explicit guidance: use this to propose a marked itinerary, and use route_between with points on the trail to trace a portion. That names an alternative and the condition selecting it, though it does not address other related siblings such as list_routes.

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