get_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the action, such as return format or side effects. This is adequate for a simple getter but not enriched.

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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it optimally concise.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, it does not clarify what 'routes' specifically returns (e.g., city pairs, flight numbers) or any limitations, leaving a minor gap. The enum and sibling names provide some disambiguation, so it remains adequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'source' parameter, including an enum and a clear description ('Mileage program source to list routes for'). The description does not add extra semantic detail, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the action ('get') and resource ('routes') and specifies the scope ('for a particular source'). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_destinations or get_flights, but the term 'routes' provides some differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The implication that it is meant for a specific source is only derived from the parameter definition, not from the description itself.

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