tmap_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time traffic' and the API source, but fails to disclose critical traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality and API, and the second lists the return values. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return values but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output schema explanation. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a minimum viable level by specifying key aspects like the API and returns.

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 schema already documents all parameters (e.g., startX as 'Start longitude (WGS84)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining coordinate formats or the optionality of startName/endName. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get Korean driving routes') and resources ('via TMap Navigation API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like google_maps_directions by specifying the Korean focus and TMap API. It explicitly mentions the return values (distance, ETA, toll fees, turn-by-turn directions), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like google_maps_directions or kakao_maps_search, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for Korean driving routes but lacks explicit context for tool selection, leaving the agent without comparative guidance.

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