guidance_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'ranked' and lists output features, but does not confirm read-only nature, discuss side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The tool likely reads data, but the description lacks explicit safety or behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's essence. It avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured by listing key outputs or parameters.

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 (17 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, expected input formats (beyond schema), or how the tool handles various parameter combinations. The agent lacks sufficient context for reliable invocation.

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 47% (low). The description adds some context by mentioning 'comparison metrics, strategy, tracking, evidence, and map geometry', but does not explain specific parameters or their interactions. It fails to compensate for the many undocumented parameters in the schema.

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 the action ('Search ranked transit guidance options') and lists key aspects (comparison metrics, strategy, tracking, evidence, map geometry). It distinguishes from siblings like plan_route by mentioning ranking and comparison metrics, though the purpose could be more specific about what 'guidance options' entails.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like plan_route. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names and sibling tool lists.

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