rank_routes

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining ranking weights, the difference between activity and congestion modes, and the critical silent fallback to activity when the traffic feed is not configured. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 moderately long but well-structured and front-loaded with the core question it answers. Each sentence adds information about ranking behavior, fallback handling, or result contents, with little wasted 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 there is no output schema, the description usefully notes that each entry carries counts and a one-line reason. It covers purpose, ranking modes, fallback behavior, and result shape. The only notable omission is the meaning of 'limit,' which is minor but still a gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains the 'by' parameter and its two modes, but it never describes 'limit' beyond the schema's default value, leaving the agent to infer that it caps the number of returned corridors.

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 tool ranks major corridors by current activity or congestion, answering broad questions like 'what are the busiest routes' and 'which highways should I avoid today.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_* and check_* tools by operating across all 17 tracked corridors rather than returning raw lists or checking a specific route.

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 gives explicit usage context with example questions and explains why someone would call this tool instead of a more specific one. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full exclusionary guidance.

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