Get route

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get route details by id', which implies a read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, what it returns, how errors surface, or any authentication requirements. The description is too thin to carry the behavioral disclosure burden.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words and the core verb+resource is front-loaded. However, it errs on the side of under-specification, and the vague term 'details' could have been made more specific without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no elaboration of what 'route details' includes, so an agent cannot predict what data will come back or how it differs from get_route_stops/get_route_vehicles. For a simple tool this may be minimally callable, but the ambiguity around 'details' and lack of usage context make it incomplete for confident selection.

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 coverage is 100%, and the only parameter (routeId) is described as 'transport12 route id.' The description merely confirms the lookup by id and adds no extra format, constraints, or context beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding new meaning.

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 action ('Get') and a specific resource ('route details') with a lookup key ('by id'). However, 'details' is vague and the description does not differentiate it from sibling tools like get_route_stops or get_route_vehicles, so it misses the distinctiveness needed for a 5.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of search_routes for finding routes by criteria, or of get_route_stops/get_route_vehicles for more specific route sub-resources, so the agent is left without routing context.

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