get_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (distance, elevation, waypoints) but does not mention read-only status, error handling, required permissions, or response format. 'Get' implies a safe read, but behavioral depth is limited.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word adds value, specifying both the action and the key output components.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and its scope. It could be improved by noting that it's a read-only operation or when NOT to use it, but the core functionality is clear.

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?

The input schema already fully describes route_id as a numeric ID with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves detailed information about a specific route, listing example content (distance, elevation profile, waypoints). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_routes, which lists routes, and get_activity, which targets activities.

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 context is clear: use when you need detailed information for a single route given its ID. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing 'specific route' versus list_routes implies selection of one route rather than listing all.

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