get_route_directions

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It adds useful context: uses OSRM, output can be minimized via parameters, and returns a dictionary with routing info. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, error handling, or explicitly label itself as read-only, so it only partially carries the transparency burden.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, an Args list, and an example. It is moderately lengthy but each sentence earns its place given the 8 parameters. The front-loading is effective and the format is readable.

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 complexity (8 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, parameters, return format, and provides an example. It lacks details on edge cases or error conditions, but for a routing tool this is fairly complete and sufficient for an agent to invoke it.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section comprehensively documents every parameter with types, defaults, and allowed values (e.g., mode, steps, overview, annotations). This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds meaning well beyond the raw 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 'Calculate detailed route directions between two geographic points' with specific verb and resource, and further explains it uses OpenStreetMap/OSRM. It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_commute, so it stops 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states what it does but does not mention scenarios where it should be preferred or excluded, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose.

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