Route history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: network attribution is by overlap, and a request spanning a route change counts for both routes. That is real beyond-annotation value, though return shape and ordering are left implicit.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the first defines the artifact and its fields, the second gives usage. Both sentences earn their place with no filler.

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 correctly explains what comes back (route transitions plus attributed exceptions, failed requests, and janky frames). It covers the key attribution caveat. Minor gap: no mention of ordering, time window, or what 'recent' means, but it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented there (default 20, max 100, min >0). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (route history: current route + recent transitions) and enriches it with what each entry carries (durations, exceptions, failed requests, janky frames). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_network or get_timeline, which cover other data planes.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('which screen is broken') and a scoping role ('scope other evidence to a screen'), which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It does not name alternatives (e.g., get_timeline) or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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