search_routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds ethical context for the involves_slavery parameter and a historical note about 'Silk Road'. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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 relatively concise but packs in key information: filter capabilities, ethical flag, and a historical caveat. It is front-loaded and avoids verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values or result structure. For a search tool with 6 parameters, it covers the main search dimensions but leaves the response format unspecified.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters described). The description adds value by clarifying the ethical implications of involves_slavery and distinguishing route_type values (e.g., CARAVAN vs LAND). This goes beyond the schema notes.

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 searches historical trade routes with specific filters (year, route_type, involves_slavery). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_route (single route) or search_events by focusing on trade routes.

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 searching routes with given criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_route or what not to use it for. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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