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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: both endpoints are mandatory, render_payload is omitted, the answer text is the same as connections, the raw data contains only view-drawn fields, and the map trace lives in _meta. It even warns against fabrication by insisting all lines, times, stops, and tracks come solely from this call's output.

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 dense but well structured, with bolded key phrases and a logical flow: what it is, when to use it, what is required, what the output contains, and where to get more guidance. Every sentence earns its place, though the many clauses bundled into single sentences make it slightly harder to parse quickly.

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 33-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational needs: when to choose it, which endpoint/coordinate combinations are mandatory, what is dropped, what the response shape is (same text as connections, reduced raw data, _meta trace), and where to find the usage guide. It is highly adequate, though a concrete example or a pointer to the exact output schema of connections would make it fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds real value beyond the schema by specifying the required pairing — origin_id AND destination_id, or the four coordinate fields — and by noting that render_payload is not applicable here. This clarifies an important constraint the schema itself does not express.

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 names the specific resource (the connections view) and the verb/action (display it in slim-delivery form), and immediately contrasts it with show_connections: same view, only delivered as a script-loaded map. It also ties the function to connections by stating it plans the trip like connections and additionally outputs it as a view, so an agent can tell it apart from both siblings.

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 is explicit: use this tool only when the slim delivery is explicitly requested, otherwise use show_connections. It also points the agent to get_usage_guide with tool='connections' for the relevant instructions, giving clear and actionable routing guidance.

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