how_are_my_routes_doing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds that the tool returns 'jobs (and completions)' per route, which gives some context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose aggregation behavior, handling of routes with zero jobs, or date boundary semantics. With strong annotations, this 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?

The description is extremely concise, using one sentence with embedded questions to convey the purpose. It is front-loaded with the user-facing questions, making the primary intent immediately clear. There is no wasted wording, though the informal structure sacrifices some precision.

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 three optional date-related parameters and an output schema present, the description should clarify how to specify the date range and what the response contains. The output schema covers return values, but the total lack of parameter guidance leaves the tool difficult to invoke correctly. The description is too thin for a tool with multiple configurable parameters.

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 has three parameters (days, end_date, start_date) but the description provides no explanation of them. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the phrase 'date range' is not enough to understand how days relates to start_date/end_date, defaults, or conflicts. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool as providing route-level metrics ('Jobs (and completions) per service route') and answers the natural language questions 'How are my routes doing?' and 'Which route is busiest?'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_service_routes (which likely just lists routes) and who_did_the_most_jobs (technician-focused). However, it lacks a direct verb like 'get' or 'list', relying on question phrasing.

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 example questions imply a use case (route performance analysis over a date range), but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_operations_summary or how_is_business_doing. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the usage context is only implied.

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