find_route

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 discloses that the tool computes a route and that it depends on resolve_operational_point, but it doesn't state any side effects, read-only nature, or error behaviors. However, since the tool is a pure computation with no destructive actions implied, this is adequate but not rich. The dependency advice adds some behavioral context.

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 with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is placed immediately after. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 having an output schema (which explains return values), the tool has many parameters (objective, allowed_gauges_mm, avoid_section_ids, detail, waypoints_for_weather) that are entirely undocumented in the description. The description only clarifies the op_id parameters indirectly via the mention of resolve_operational_point. Given the tool's complexity and zero schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 0%, and the description fails to compensate. It mentions 'op_id values' but does not explain that from_op_id and to_op_id are required, nor does it explain objective, allowed_gauges_mm, avoid_section_ids, detail, or waypoints_for_weather. An agent cannot infer what these parameters mean from the description alone.

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 ('Compute'), the resource ('a route between two operational points'), and the context ('over the ERA RINF infrastructure graph'). This distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_operational_point (resolves points) and check_train_compatibility (checks compatibility), making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

Explicitly instructs the caller to 'Call resolve_operational_point first' and to call this tool 'before check_train_compatibility or assess_weather_risk' because both need the route. This provides direct ordering and dependency guidance, leaving no ambiguity about when to use it relative to siblings.

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