sg_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that SG_ONEMAP_EMAIL and SG_ONEMAP_PASSWORD are required, which is beyond the schema. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or rate limits, leaving a notable gap for a read-style routing tool.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences each add value: the main purpose, the supported modes, and the prerequisite workflow. No filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

The description covers purpose, modes, and auth, but omits any mention of the response structure—critical since no output schema is provided. For a 3-parameter tool without annotations, it is minimally viable but leaves users wondering what the route result looks like.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond the schema, which already explains start, end_point, and mode with examples and an enum.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Get route between two points in Singapore,' clearly identifying the tool's resource (routes) and geographic scope. It also lists supported modes (driving, walking, public transport), which distinguishes it from other location-based siblings like sg_geocode or sg_nearby.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use sg_geocode first to get coordinates,' establishing a clear workflow prerequisite and pointing to a sibling tool. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or list exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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