search_routes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only operation (tier: readonly-owner) and returns matching IDs, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral expectations.

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 one short, well-structured sentence followed by endpoint and tier information. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It only states the basic function and endpoint, leaving significant gaps around filter semantics, output structure, and usage context.

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 only 11% for 9 parameters, and the description does nothing to compensate. Parameters like includeData and extra_filters remain unexplained, forcing the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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 action (search), the resource (technician routes), and the result (matching IDs). It also maps to a specific endpoint, adding confidence. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_routes or other search_* tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_routes or other search tools. The tier hint 'readonly-owner' gives some context but does not clarify selection criteria.

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