route_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. "Explain" and the listed output metrics strongly imply a read-only informational operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently lists the key output dimensions without unnecessary preamble.

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?

An output schema exists and the description summarizes the returned metrics, so return values are reasonably covered. What remains missing is the route_id source/prerequisite and any guidance on when to choose this over siblings.

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 never explains route_id, its expected format, or where to obtain it. The single parameter is simple and inferable from context, but the description adds little beyond the schema's parameter name.

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 gives a specific verb ("Explain") and resource ("planned route"), then enumerates the route metrics returned. It clearly separates this from plan_route by implying this is post-planning detail retrieval, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 phrase "planned route" and required route_id imply this should be used after a route has been planned. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of plan_route, and no exclusions versus export_gpx or other siblings.

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