find-nearby-routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the read-only nature and the core behavior (returns routes within distance) but does not mention pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, or potential errors. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage. No filler or redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and usage. It does not describe return structure, but the phrase 'Returns the athlete's saved routes' is enough for basic use. Sibling differentiation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter has detailed descriptions including examples, defaults, and constraints. The description merely restates the input requirements ('Provide latitude and longitude...') without adding new semantics, which aligns with the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Returns') with a clear resource ('athlete's saved routes') and scope ('start within a given distance of a location'). It also provides usage phrasing ('nearby routes', 'routes in a specific area') that distinguishes it from siblings like list-athlete-routes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the user asks for routes near a place, nearby routes, or routes in a specific area.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the 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.