Compare routing profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains that the tool computes routes for multiple profiles and reports comparison metrics, which is useful. It does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or constraints such as profile availability, though for a routing comparison the main behavior is well covered.

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 sentence that front-loads the action (routes same waypoints with several profiles) and the purpose (compare metrics to pick best style), with no filler or repeated schema information.

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 nested parameters and no output schema, the description names all key output dimensions and states the input structure. Optional parameters are left to a detailed schema, and available profiles can be discovered from sibling list_profiles, so an agent has enough context to invoke it 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 coverage is 75% and most parameters already have descriptive text, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example profile list and links profiles to the comparison metrics, but does not materially add meaning to waypoints, avoid_areas, or profile_options beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('routes', 'compares') and a clear resource (waypoints across multiple routing profiles), and names concrete comparison metrics (distance, riding time, climb, surface mix). This distinguishes it from siblings like plan_route or list_profiles by emphasizing multi-profile comparison rather than single-route planning or profile enumeration.

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?

It clearly frames the use case: pick a route style by comparing the same waypoints under several profiles. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'several profiles' contrast makes the selection condition reasonably clear.

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