Get Available Routes with Complex Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's statement 'Returns available routes' is consistent but adds no new behavioral traits. It does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or error handling for invalid dangerous goods classifications.

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 exceptionally concise with two short sentences and a clear args listing. Every part adds value without verbosity.

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 good annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool handling hazardous items. It lacks return value description, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., item credentials). The large number of sibling tools suggests more differentiation would help.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema. It repeats 'complexItems (dangerous goods, specialised packaging)' but does not clarify the structure or required fields within the request object.

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 title and description clearly state the tool returns available routes for shipments with complex items (dangerous goods, specialised packaging). It distinguishes from siblings like machship_get_routes and machship_get_routes_batch by specifying the complex item handling.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., machship_get_routes for simple items or machship_get_routes_batch for batch requests). No contextual cues or exclusions are given.

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