Geometría 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 adds the output coordinate format ([lon, lat]) which is useful. However, it does not disclose details like whether direction=0 returns outbound geometry, whether the polyline is truncated, or how the default direction is treated.

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 states purpose and output format with no filler. It is efficiently front-loaded and earns its place, though it could have used the spare space to cover more behavioral detail rather than being minimal.

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?

There is an output schema present, so return-value explanation isn't strictly needed. However, the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and a direction that defaults to 0 but is unexplained. For a geometry tool in a GTFS domain, the description is adequate but misses directional semantics and use-case context relative to sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description bears responsibility. It defines the shape output format ([lon, lat]) but adds no semantic detail about the direction parameter (what direction values mean, default behavior) or the route_id format. The route_id parameter is self-evident, but direction semantics are entirely unexplained.

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 'Geometría (shape) de un recorrido como coordenadas [lon, lat]' with a clear verb+resource (get shape/geometry of a route) and clarifies the output format as [lon, lat] coordinates. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools, but there's only one geometry-shaped tool among the listed siblings, so differentiation is reasonably clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that geometry complements get_route_stops or get_route, nor any conditions like requiring a specific GTFS feed, or the meaning of the default direction parameter. An agent would not know when to prefer this over get_route or get_route_stops for spatial needs.

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