generate_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a 10-60 second runtime, explains the internal behavior ('evaluates several candidates and picks the best one'), and states the side effect of writing a GPX file. It stops short of covering permission/auth requirements, whether an existing GPX is overwritten, or what happens on failure.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core capability is front-loaded and the runtime caveat follows immediately, which is exactly the ordering an agent needs before committing to a call that blocks for up to a minute.

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 the description needn't enumerate return fields, and the rich input schema covers the nine parameters. For a complex, slow, side-effecting generation tool the description covers purpose, latency, and output side effects; the remaining gap is failure behavior and overwrite semantics.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, including the trail_type enum semantics and the seed/loop behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate an MTB or road cycling route'), plus the routing substrate (real trails/roads) and two side effects (saves GPX, returns summary and warnings). It never names the sibling list_routes, but 'generate' vs 'list' is self-evidently distinct, so the only missing element is explicit sibling differentiation.

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 context is implied by the phrase 'MTB or road cycling route on real trails/roads', which tells the agent this is for route creation rather than retrieval. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to use it, and no pointer to list_routes as the alternative for inspecting existing routes.

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