Detalle de un recorrido

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description lists what data is returned (name, color, mode, stops, frequencies), adding some value about scope. However, with no output schema detail discussed and limited behavioral context beyond the annotation baseline, it doesn't add rich behavioral information about pagination, defaults, or edge cases like routes with no stops.

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 concise sentence that enumerates the key fields comprehensively. It covers all the meaningful content in 15 words with no waste. Slightly more context about relationships to sibling tools could have been added but the economy is good.

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?

The tool has an output schema which covers return-value expectations, and readOnly annotations. However, the description doesn't clarify how this relates to siblings like get_route_stops, get_route_shape, and list_routes — whether calling get_route returns everything they do or is a different view. For a tool with a moderately rich output (stops, frequencies), a bit more guidance on relationship to sibling tools would improve completeness.

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?

There is only one parameter (route_id) which is self-explanatory and already documented by the schema. With 0% schema description coverage but a single obvious parameter, the tool name plus description context ('detalle de un recorrido') makes the route_id meaning clear. Since there's only one obvious parameter, the description doesn't need to add much beyond what the schema conveys. However, it doesn't specify the expected format or source of route_id (e.g., from list_routes).

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Detalle de un recorrido' — detail of a route) and enumerates the specific fields returned: nombre, color, modo, paradas de ida/vuelta, y frecuencias por día. It distinguishes from siblings like get_route_stops (which focuses on stops only) and get_arrivals. However, it's in Spanish while the field is route_id, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_route_shape which is a sibling.

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 implies this is for retrieving comprehensive route details including stops and frequencies, which distinguishes it somewhat from get_route_stops and get_arrivals. However, there's no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of how it differs from the other get_route* siblings. The purpose is inferable but not explicitly stated.

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