Get route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the trailing 'Read-only' merely restates them. However the description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the watchEnabled/watch-sync caveat ('Whether the route is actually on the watch cannot be seen here') and the list_routes 5-item limitation are non-obvious constraints an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the field list, then caveats — a sensible ordering. The long inline field enumeration (with units and flag meanings) is dense but justified given there is no output schema; only the 'Read-only' sentence is redundant with annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: field names, units (m, epoch ms), coordinate structure, and flag semantics. Combined with the watch-sync caveat, nothing an agent needs to interpret the response is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage on a single required routeId parameter, the schema fully documents the input and the description does not add format or edge-case detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('Returns one saved Suunto route by id') and immediately enumerates the returned fields, so it is unmistakably distinct from list_routes (enumeration) and export_route (track download). An agent can pick it correctly without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent to alternatives: 'Use export_route for the track,' and notes it works for routes list_routes omits because that tool returns at most 5. Both the when and the when-to-use-something-else are stated.

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