driving_directions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the operation pattern and required parameters, but does not describe the response format, potential limitations, authentication needs, or any side effects. There is no contradiction, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a structured operation list. The only minor redundancy is the 'Get Directions' label duplicating the operation name, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return value and any important context. It provides the invocation pattern and required params, but lacks details on response structure, route detail scope, and whether it supports real-time data, making it only partially complete for a navigation tool.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for 'operation' and 'args' (100% coverage), and the description adds the required parameters for the get_directions operation (origin, destination). However, it does not elaborate on parameter formats (e.g., address vs. coordinates), so it only partially adds meaning beyond 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 tool provides turn-by-turn driving directions and route details between origin and destination, with a specific verb ('get_directions') and resource. It distinguishes itself from generic search tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'waze'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like waze. The description only explains the operation structure and required parameters, without any context on use cases, limitations, or exclusions.

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