route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: the default answer appends a 'verify the approach on arrival' caveat, and no turn-by-turn data is computed. However, it says nothing about units, coordinate ordering assumptions, error behavior, or what the 'mode' parameter actually changes if distance is straight-line.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the second half is editorial prose that restates the same disclaimer about turn-by-turn navigation twice. It is not bloated enough to bury the point, but sentences could be tightened.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth, and it does convey the substance of the return (distance, direction, a caveat string). It still leaves gaps an agent needs for correct invocation: units, response format, and the effect of mode.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implies that fromLat/fromLon and toLat/toLon form the two coordinate pairs; it never explains units, precision, ordering, or the role of the walk/bike/drive enum, which is left entirely opaque.

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 concrete output set: straight-line distance and compass bearing between two coordinates. It sharply disambiguates itself from a true routing engine by denying turn-by-turn capability, so an agent knows exactly what it will and will not get. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling tool by name, which keeps it below 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the word 'Feasibility' and the denial of turn-by-turn suggest a quick sanity check, not navigation. There is no explicit 'use this when…, use X instead' guidance, and no sibling (get_maplet, localize, search_places) is named as an alternative.

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