wx_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the tool's composition, the sampling points along the great-circle route, and the dependency on the station API for coordinate resolution. It does not describe output format or failure modes, but covers key behaviors well.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second details the data sources and spatial scope, and the third gives a critical usage rule. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what data is fetched, where it is sampled, and how to handle coordinates. It could have mentioned the output structure or error behavior, but the provided details are sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that ICAO codes must be passed exactly as given and that coordinates must never be guessed, which is directly relevant to the from_icao and to_icao parameters. The other parameters are already well explained in the schema.

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 defines the tool's purpose as creating a route weather brief for a direct flight, listing the exact data sources (METARs, ICON-D2, SIGMETs). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like wx_metar, wx_sigmets, or wx_icon_d2 by combining these into a route-based product.

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 states when to use the tool: for a direct flight between two airports, and it gives explicit guidance to never guess coordinates and to pass ICAO codes exactly as given. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the route-specific context is clear enough.

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