maps_distance_matrix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' signals a read-only operation and the description names the outputs (distances and durations), which is useful. However, it does not mention matrix size limits, response format, or any other operational constraints that could affect an agent's expectations.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool does, and the core matrix concept is front-loaded.

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 relatively simple tool, the description communicates the essential output (distances and durations) and the multi-origin/destination nature. The parameter details are fully covered by the schema, and the absence of an output schema is partly offset by naming the return concepts. It lacks explicit limits or format details, but it is adequate for correct selection and 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 100%, so parameters origins, destinations, and mode are already documented in the input schema. The description only reinforces the origin/destination concept without adding new meaning. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('travel distances and durations between multiple origins and destinations'), clearly identifying the tool's core purpose. The phrase 'multiple origins and destinations' hints at the many-to-many matrix behavior and distinguishes it from a single route tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 implies the tool is for many-to-many travel distance/duration queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus maps_directions or other sibling tools. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative recommendation, so usage context is only implied rather than explicit.

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