Get trail summaries by ids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Fetch') and mentions the output shape, but does not disclose potential behaviors like auth requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first defines the core action, second adds context and distinguishes from a sibling. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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, the description references 'same compact shape as the search tools' which is helpful but vague. While it provides enough context for an agent familiar with the domain, it could be more self-contained by briefly describing the return fields.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, staying at the baseline.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'summary entries for multiple routes', and the method 'by OSM relation ids'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the return shape and directing to get_route_details for full detail.

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 tells when to use (when you have multiple IDs and need summaries) and explicitly says when not to use (for full detail on a single route, use get_route_details). It could be more specific about alternatives like search tools, but it mentions the output shape matches search tools, implying they can also be used.

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