List routes

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that Suunto's endpoint ignores limit/offset, appears to return the newest routes, and that this is unverified — a behavioral limitation an agent could not otherwise anticipate. It also enumerates the returned fields and their units.

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 cap ('at most 5') and the incompleteness warning are front-loaded before the alternatives and field list, which is the right ordering. The field enumeration is a long run of clauses but each item carries return-value information not available elsewhere.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so field-by-field with units (meters, epoch ms). Combined with the truncation caveat and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly offers no parameter guidance. It instead spends its words on the return shape, which is the only semantic surface available.

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+resource ('Returns the user's saved Suunto routes') and immediately scopes it with a hard cap of 5. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_route for id lookups and export_route for GPX tracks.

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 says the tool is NOT a full listing and directs the agent to get_route by id (with three concrete id sources) and to export_route for the GPX track. The conditions selecting each alternative are spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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