List Homeric Atlas routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: that the list includes rival reconstructions with separate scores, and that these are reconstructed itineraries rather than definitive routes. This enriches the agent's understanding of the output without contradicting the annotations.

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, both informative. The first sentence states the primary purpose and output content; the second gives a concrete usage scenario. There is no redundancy or filler, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, a rich output schema, and comprehensive safety annotations, this description is complete. It explains what is listed, highlights the scoring of rival reconstructions, and tells the agent when to use it. Nothing critical is missing.

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 only one optional locale parameter and 100% schema description coverage (including an explicit enum), the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed since the locale parameter's meaning and allowed values are already explicit.

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 states a specific action and resource: it lists reconstructed itineraries (nostos of Odysseus and the others), including rival reconstructions with separate scores. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_homeric_places or list_homeric_episodes.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'to see which voyages the atlas reconstructs before fetching one,' giving clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name the alternative get_homeric_route or state when not to use it, but the 'before fetching one' phrasing strongly implies the companion tool.

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