Get route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is established. The description adds output content (segments and estimated moving time) but does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or other behavioral nuances.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the resource, includes the endpoint context, and contains no filler or redundant 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?

With one parameter, good annotations, and a simple read operation, the description adequately communicates the core return contents (segments and estimated moving time). It could mention the full route fields or error scenarios, but for this simple tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 fully documents the 'id' parameter with type, range, and description, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the necessary detail.

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 'A single route with its segments and estimated moving time (GET /routes/{id})' clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a specific route by ID, distinguishing it from list operations like strava_list_routes. The endpoint specification further reinforces the GET verb and resource.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. It does not state that the route ID typically comes from strava_list_routes or that other route-related tools exist.

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