Get route patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds only the nature of the returned data (geometry/pattern), saying nothing about auth, rate limits, or payload shape, which is a modest contribution given the 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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the trailing "via getpatterns" is redundant with the tool name and earns no place.

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?

With no output schema and 0 required parameters across three params, the description should say what the returned pattern/geometry data looks like and when the optional filters matter. As written, an agent cannot tell what a pattern record contains or why it might omit rt/pid.

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 67%: rt and pid are documented in the schema while rtpidatafeed is not described anywhere. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, so it neither compensates for the undocumented parameter nor adds beyond the schema — baseline territory for a partially-covered 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?

The description names a specific verb ("Fetch") and resource ("route geometry/pattern data"), which is more informative than the bare name. However, "via getpatterns" merely restates the tool name, and it does not distinguish patterns from adjacent siblings like prt_get_routes or prt_get_directions.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to an alternative among the six sibling tools. The agent is left to infer that this is the pattern/geometry-specific variant on its own.

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