calculate_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It warns that the result may not be reliable as live data until provider metadata/source is inspected, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, errors, latency, or what kind of response is returned, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded first, followed by the critical caveat about provider metadata. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity of three required parameters, the description is reasonably complete, and the freshness caveat is important. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the result shape, failure modes, and the exact relationship to provider-status checking underspecified.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain from_place_id, to_place_id, or mode beyond what their names and the enum already imply. The self-descriptive schema helps, but the description itself does not compensate for the low 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate a route through the configured RouteProvider.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_trips or get_trip that retrieve existing data rather than compute a new route. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides clear context for using the tool by requiring provider metadata/source inspection before treating results as live data. It does not state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the instruction gives practical guidance on when extra verification is needed.

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