Export route as GPX

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' is largely a restatement. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the concrete return type (GPX 1.1 XML string) and the interoperability intent, which the annotations do not cover. No auth or rate-limit notes, but none are needed for this read-only export.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and output format, followed by relevance and prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 correctly fills the gap by stating the return value is a GPX 1.1 XML string. Combined with the prerequisite pointer and read-only status, an agent has everything needed to call this one-parameter tool 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% and the single routeId parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Route ID returned by list_routes.' The description's 'Use list_routes to discover valid route IDs' essentially repeats that provenance rather than adding format or constraint detail, so the 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 precise verb+resource ('Exports a saved Suunto route') and even names the output format (GPX 1.1 XML string), which is unusually specific. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling export_workout_gpx, leaving the agent to infer the route-vs-workout distinction from the resource name alone.

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?

Provides clear context for when the output is useful ('import into navigation apps such as Komoot, Strava, Garmin Connect') and names the prerequisite discovery tool (list_routes). It stops short of an explicit when-not or an alternative export tool comparison, but the usage context is well conveyed.

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