search_known_routes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the geographic restriction (Switzerland) and the return type (description of known routes). However, it lacks details on result count, pagination, or performance implications, which would enhance transparency.

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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information (purpose, geographic limitation, parameter details). No redundant or vague statements.

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 tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters with format guidance, geographic scope, and return type. It is complete for an AI agent to use 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?

The description adds value beyond the input schema by specifying the coordinate order as [longitude, latitude] and listing common route_type values. Schema coverage is 0%, so this context is essential. However, it does not list all enum values (schema has more) and omits parameter descriptions for each field.

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 searches for known hiking/cycling routes near given coordinates, aiding waypoint suggestion for route creation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_pois and create_route_from_to by focusing on known trails.

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 explains when to use (for finding known trails to suggest waypoints) and includes a key limitation (only works in Switzerland via Swiss Geo API). It does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, but the limitation provides practical guidance.

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