查询起终点路线并推荐交通方式

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context: it parses real coordinates, compares multiple modes, and returns fallback results when a mode fails. This surpasses annotation-only insight, though it does not detail rate limits or cost implications.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's primary role ('主要入口') and efficiently covers input, process, output, and error handling. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 2 required), comprehensive schema descriptions, and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input, processing steps, and output (distance, time, steps, recommendation). It also addresses error resilience. No significant gaps remain.

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%, providing good per-parameter documentation. The description adds high-level context (e.g., parsing coordinates, mode comparison) but does not significantly enhance individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already supplies. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it is the main entry for querying directions between an origin and destination, comparing walking, driving, and transit, and returning distance, time, key steps, and a recommendation. This distinguishes it from siblings like amap_plan_route by emphasizing multi-mode comparison and recommendation.

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 implicitly positions this as the primary directions tool ('主要入口') but does not explicitly specify when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is implied but not formally stated.

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