get_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and it names the return contents (route details plus stops), but there is no disclosure of permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior for an operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the parameter note is short and directly actionable. The 'Args:' block is slightly boilerplate but the content inside it is non-redundant, so nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape is discoverable and the agent has enough to invoke the tool with a valid ID. However, with no annotations and no sibling routing guidance, the definition is adequate but not complete for a tool sitting among several related transit lookups.

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 coverage is 0% — the schema only says 'Route Id' as a string — so the description must carry the semantics, and it does: it identifies the format (GTFS route ID), gives a concrete example ('1:1'), and tells the agent where to source the value. This adds genuine meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Get details about a transport route including its stops'), which is clear on its own. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closest sibling, get_trip_stops, which also returns stop information, leaving the route-vs-trip distinction to be inferred.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent is told where to obtain the ID ('Find these from stop search results'), which is useful workflow guidance, but there is no statement of when this tool should be preferred over siblings like get_trip_stops or plan_trip, nor any exclusions.

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