loki_get_phlebo_planned_route

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (ordered waypoints, locations) and the nature of the data (planned route), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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: two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, output, and a key comparison use case. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return format (ordered [lng,lat] waypoints plus locations). Annotations cover permission and variability. The description distinguishes the tool from related siblings and provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (date format, integer id). The description does not add new information about parameters beyond saying 'on a date' and 'for a phlebo/rider', which is redundant. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score 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 tool returns the planned route for a phlebo/rider on a date, specifying it includes ordered [lng,lat] waypoints plus order/home/hub locations. It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool loki_get_phlebo_actual_route, making the purpose highly specific.

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 context by suggesting comparison with the actual route to spot deviations, implying a use case for route analysis. While it does not explicitly state when to use or not use the tool, the reference to a sibling tool gives clear situational guidance.

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