Get route directions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't clarify what 'directions' means (direction of travel vs. turn-by-turn navigation) or what the response contains.

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?

A single short sentence, reasonably front-loaded, but 'using getdirections' is redundant with the tool name and consumes part of an already very thin description.

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 read-only lookup with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should at least say what 'directions' returns and what the data-feed parameter does. Neither is provided, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'rt' is documented as 'Route code' but 'rtpidatafeed' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not mention any parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (directions for a route), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_routes or get_predictions. The trailing 'using getdirections' is redundant restatement and adds no clarity.

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 siblings such as prt_get_routes or prt_get_patterns, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer that this returns directional variants of a route.

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