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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing what is returned (distance, time, legs), but says nothing about failure modes (unroutable waypoints, invalid mode) or rate limits, which would be valuable for a routing call.

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, front-loaded with the core action and result before the REST endpoint note. Nothing is wasted, though the endpoint line is of marginal value to an agent that only needs to pick and call the tool.

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 point-to-point routing tool with a fully documented schema and read-only annotation, the description covers the essentials and even hints at the return shape despite no output schema existing. The main gap is the absence of routing-specific caveats (failure behavior, alternatives).

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema with examples and formats. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema (it only alludes to 'waypoints' and 'travel mode'), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compute a route between waypoints'), names the travel-mode input, and summarizes the return (distance, time, legs). It is clearly distinguishable from the geocoding, places, and isoline siblings, though it never names the closest alternative (geoapify_isoline) to draw the boundary explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., API key/auth), and no mention of when a different sibling such as geoapify_isoline would be preferable. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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