validate_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one real side effect ('Lance automatiquement les analyses manquantes' for points notables, passages techniques, zones) and the verdict vocabulary (ok/warning/error with km position). It omits whether the route is mutated or analyses persisted, expected latency/cost, and any permission requirements.

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 verb is front-loaded, which is good, but the middle is a 15-item run-on enumeration of check categories that mixes purpose with coverage detail. It is informative but not tightly structured, and the status/auto-analysis information is buried after the list.

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 details are not required, and the description does mention the status outcomes. For a multi-faceted validation tool with no annotations and no usage routing, however, it leaves gaps around when to prefer it over narrower sibling checks and how costly or side-effecting a run is.

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?

There is a single parameter, route_id, whose meaning is self-evident despite 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description. The description does not need to annotate it further, so the baseline-4 treatment for trivially obvious parameters applies.

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 verb and resource ('Vérifie l'itinéraire') and enumerates the concrete dimensions checked (geometry, forbidden access, regulated zones, slopes, weather, data quality). This clearly distinguishes it as an aggregate validator rather than a single-check utility, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with overlapping siblings like data_quality or technical_passages.

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: an agent can infer it is meant to be run to obtain a validation verdict before/after planning, and the auto-run sentence hints at a consolidation role. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of alternative sibling tools for narrower checks.

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