get_routes

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: '[tier: readonly-owner]' discloses access level and read-only nature, 'up to 1000 route IDs' indicates a batch limit, and 'Maps to POST /route/get' reveals the HTTP method. This goes beyond the name and schema, though it could mention handling of invalid or excess IDs.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and front-loads the core purpose ('Get full route records'). The API mapping and tier annotation are appended efficiently without wasted words.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it states the action, resource, limit, and access level. However, 'full route records' is vague regarding the return structure, and there is no mention of error behavior or partial success scenarios, leaving a small gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that the sole parameter 'routeIDs' consists of route IDs and imposes a maximum of 1000. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema type definition, although it could explicitly reference the parameter name for absolute clarity.

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 the tool's function: 'Get full route records' with a specific resource (routes) and a constraint (up to 1000 route IDs). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like search_routes by focusing on retrieval by IDs, and the 'Maps to POST /route/get' adds technical specificity.

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 usage: when you have route IDs and need full records. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_routes for finding routes by criteria, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The batch limit gives some context but not exclusions.

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