route_danger

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool produces a per-jump report including security, last-hour kill activity, and chokepoints, which fully conveys what the tool does behaviorally. It does not discuss authentication or side effects, but as a read-only report, the description provides appropriate transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds a usage directive. Every word earns its place with no fluff. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the report contents (security, kill activity, chokepoints) and when to use it. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Slight lack of detail on return format, but not required given the clarity of the description.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about high-sec chokepoints and per-jump analysis but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'per-jump safety report for a journey between two systems.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like system_intel or recent_losses by focusing on route-level safety (each system's security, kill activity, and gank chokepoints). This is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit context: 'Use it before anyone undocks for a long haul.' This tells when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the clear use case is sufficient for a score of 4.

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