route_otp_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it defines 'late' using arrival_delay_min > late_threshold_min, explains the default threshold, states quarantined rows are excluded and listed by id, and notes hidden vehicle overrides are not applied. It lacks return-format details, but an output schema exists.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core purpose, followed by three tightly-scoped behavioral details. Every line adds unique value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the key behavioral nuances (late threshold, quarantine handling, override exclusion) and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. The main gap is the lack of context around date range parameters, but overall the tool is adequately specified for invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for late_threshold_min (defining the late condition and default) and clarifies route scope, but start_date and end_date are completely unexplained—including format and behavior when null. This is a partial but incomplete compensation.

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 summarizes on-time performance for one route, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_late_trips and data_quality_report, which focus on individual trips or broader quality issues.

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 the tool is for route-level OTP summaries but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_late_trips or data_quality_report. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, only the implied scope of 'one route'.

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