Get Operator Routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes both routes and stations plus valid operator identifiers, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or error behavior when an operator key is unknown.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence pairing the purpose label with the scope and examples; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical example list is dense but functional rather than 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?

For a read-only lookup tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and with no output schema, the description covers the core call. It still leaves the language parameter unexplained and offers no guidance on what the route/station payload looks like or how to pick among sibling route 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 coverage is 50%: operator_name has only the generic gloss '事業者キー', but the description supplies concrete example values (tokyometro, jreast, mir, twr, yurikamome, toden) that genuinely help fill it. The language parameter remains undocumented in both schema text and description, so it only partially compensates.

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 verb+resource (displays all routes and stations for a specified operator), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like search_route or list_transit_operators, but the operator-scoped listing intent is 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?

No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative against the many route-related siblings. Usage is only implied, though the example operator keys give practical invocation hints.

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