fleetsync_routes_by_date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does state what the response includes ('driver, status, and order count'), which is useful. However, it omits details about pagination, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the primary function. It is concise with no fluff, earning the highest score for efficiency.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and what it returns. It does not need to explain return values in detail since no output schema exists, but it could have referenced sibling tools for better navigation. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a simple query tool.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with the 'date' field described as 'Date in YYYY-MM-DD format'. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely reiterating that the tool is for a specific date. Since schema coverage is full, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('all FleetSync routes'), and qualifier ('for a specific date'), making it easy to understand the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fleetsync_get_routes (which likely retrieves all routes without a date filter) and fleetsync_get_route (single route).

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 provides clear context that this tool should be used to fetch routes for a specific date, implying a filtering use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, such as fleetsync_orders_by_date for orders on a date, though the context is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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