Search Routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data traits are covered. The description adds that results are route ids rather than full route objects, which meaningfully shapes agent behavior, but it says nothing about pagination, result volume, or that tariffs/currency affect returned price data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the return-value/chaining hint; nothing is redundant. It is efficient but leans terse given the tool's 10 parameters.

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?

With an output schema present, return-shape detail is not required, and the annotations cover the read-only profile. Still, for a 10-parameter search with cursor pagination, tariff lists and currency options, the description omits enough that an agent must fall back entirely on the schema to call it well.

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 80%, so the schema already documents lang, page, cursor, tariffs, currency and departure_date defaults. The description only restates that two locations and a date are involved, adding no new semantics such as how from_type/to_type interact or how cursor paging is used.

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 ('Search RegioJet connections between two locations on a date') and names the follow-up sibling get_route_detail, so an agent knows this is the entry point to a route lookup. It stops short of distinguishing itself from find_locations or get_free_seats, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 clause 'Returns route ids for get_route_detail' implies the intended workflow and sequencing, which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. ids must come from find_locations), and no exclusions.

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