Get a route's waymarking symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool returns 'image plus the raw SVG markup', which is good, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or guarantee no side effects. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing critical context. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundant words.

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 2 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: how to get the symbol_id, what the output contains (image and SVG), and the flavour options. It is nearly complete, though a brief note on the absence of side effects would perfect it.

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 100% as both parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by specifying that symbol_id originates from search/detail tools and explaining the flavour enum values. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description states the specific verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'waymarking symbol (route shield) SVG', clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_route_details or get_route_elevation.

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 explains that the symbol_id comes from search/detail tools, providing context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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