Stops of a route

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the rest. It meaningfully adds that recipients are withheld, addresses are reduced to locality, and PoD links/signee names/tracking links are omitted by default, plus the exact flag that reverses this. That is substantive behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, though pagination behavior is left to the schema.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the default-vs-override behavioral note. No filler, and each clause carries distinct information.

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 still conveys return contents (delivery state and outcome, ETA, time window, packages) and the default redaction posture. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 route_id, page_token, external_id, max_results and include_contact_details are already documented at the schema level. The prose reinforces include_contact_details and the default redaction but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema text provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (the stops of one route) and narrows scope to a single driver's run in API-returned order, which separates it from the broader list_routes and search_stops. However it does not explicitly name the closest sibling list_plan_stops, so an agent must infer the route-vs-plan distinction.

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 is implied by the scoping phrase 'one route (one driver's run)' but there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_stops, list_plan_stops or get_route, and no stated prerequisites. The defaults paragraph explains behavior rather than alternatives, leaving selection logic to inference.

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