Search routes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one non-obvious behavior: omitting the query returns all routes. It does not, however, describe whether matching is exact or partial, whether results are paginated, or how the 'kind' parameter affects results.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation and accepted inputs; the second adds the key edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-optional-parameter search tool, the description provides the essential search semantics and the all-routes fallback. The main omissions are the effect of 'kind' and any output format details, but the schema covers the parameter well enough for an agent to proceed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'query' is a route number or name and adds the 'all routes' fallback, but it does not explain how 'kind' interacts with the search.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('routes') and clarifies that matches can be by 'number or name'. This is clear enough to distinguish the tool from route-detail tools like get_route, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools.

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 implies the core usage: provide a route number or name as the query. It also covers the omitted-query behavior by saying 'returns all routes'. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_stops, search_everything, or get_route.

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