route_areas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it delivers something genuinely useful: the output never asserts legality ('Ne dit jamais « autorisé »') and instead points to the site's own regulations, and it flags that the rules returned are only 'probables'. It omits other traits such as error behavior or how zones are matched to the route, but the output-semantics caveat is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot supply.

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 clauses: first the inventory of zone types, then the important caveat about not declaring authorization. Front-loaded and free of padding, though the em-dash list is dense.

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, and the semantic caveat about legality is a real addition. What is missing is routing guidance against the many sibling diagnostic tools, which matters for a route-analysis toolset this large.

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?

Only one parameter (route_id) exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the burden falls on the description. It implies the input is a route but never states that route_id is the identifier produced by list_routes/get_route or what format it takes; the parameter name makes the intent guessable, so this is adequate rather than helpful.

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 resource – regulated zones (national parks, nature reserves, protected areas, military land) crossed by a route – so an agent knows exactly what this returns and can separate it from siblings like find_pois or technical_passages. It is a noun phrase with no explicit verb and no direct naming of an alternative tool, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as technical_passages, find_pois, or data_quality; usage is only inferable from the topic. No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions are given.

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