plan_operational_route

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

The description says 'Read-only', which matches the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, so there is no contradiction. It adds some functional context (stops, climbs, weather, fueling) beyond the annotations, but these are more about output scope than behavioral traits, and no additional information is given about side effects, permissions, or external dependencies.

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 one focused sentence that starts with the action and resource, front-loads the primary purpose, and closes with safety-relevant 'Read-only'. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for its core purpose.

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?

The tool is complex (20 parameters, no output schema), and the description does not explain what the response contains or how the three stated timing scenarios are returned. It does not describe validation, error behavior, or dependencies such as the optional COROS calibration. For an agent to plan a route, the description is too thin to support correct or advanced usage.

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 35% with 20 parameters, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It only hints at features like stops, climbing, daylight, fueling, and weather, but never explains how those map to the dozens of unifying parameters (e.g., calibration lookback, ascent/descent penalties, fueling intervals). An agent cannot reliably construct correct argument values from this description.

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 clear verb and resource — 'Build an operational GPX plan' — and enumerates the covered activity types and plan contents (three timing scenarios, named stops, climbs, daylight, fueling, optional weather). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like analyze_gpx_route or simulate_ultra_route; the planning-vs-analysis distinction is left to inference.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use conditions or exclusions, and it does not mention alternatives or tell the agent when to choose this over related tools such as simulate_ultra_route or calculate_fueling_plan. The implied usage of 'build a plan' is present, but there is no tangible decision guidance.

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