fleetsync_get_route

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

With no annotations, the description covers the tool's behavior by stating it returns route details, driver assignment, orders, and status. It does not explicitly mention side effects or errors, but as a 'get' operation it is implied to be read-only. It adds value by specifying the return scope.

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 description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, including the list of returned data, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it identifies the tool, the input, and the expected output content. It doesn't introduce unnecessary prerequisites or caveats.

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?

The input schema fully documents the 'code' parameter at 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond naming the lookup key. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool gets a specific route by code, and distinguishes from siblings like fleetsync_get_routes (plural) by specifying 'specific' and 'by its code.' It also previews the return content, making the purpose unequivocal.

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 description implies usage for retrieving a single route by its code, but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternative tool references. Since siblings exist for listing all routes or routes by date, the guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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