mp_get_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information', implying a read operation, but does not disclose output shape, failure behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is a thin description for a tool that could return complex route data.

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 one succinct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then states the identifying input. Every word contributes to the tool's 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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool, the description plus schema is largely sufficient to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could mention what information is returned or note that no auth is required, but the low complexity makes the current description acceptable.

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%, with the single routeId parameter already documented as 'Mountain Project route ID'. The description adds the word 'numeric', which matches the integer type but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('detailed information about a climbing route'), and the key selection criterion ('by numeric ID'). This distinguishes it from siblings like mp_get_area and mp_search, which target different resources or use different lookup modes.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent should call this when it has a numeric route ID and wants route details. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over mp_search or mp_find_routes, nor any mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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