route

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses the return format (distance_km, duration_sec, legs, steps, geometry), explains that duration_sec is under normal conditions without live traffic, and clarifies waypoint order and travel mode effects (e.g., truck restrictions).

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 well-structured: a single sentence for purpose, structured return format, and bullet-point notes for key aspects like waypoint order and travel modes. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 (routing with waypoints, modes, units), the description covers critical behavioral aspects (order, modes, ETA, multi-stop). Missing details like optimization criteria (time vs. distance) and lack of output schema slightly reduce completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing waypoint order, explaining travel mode enum semantics (e.g., truck applies restrictions), and noting multi-stop optimization, earning a 4.

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 'Get turn-by-turn directions between two or more waypoints,' specifying a unique verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'matrix' and 'isochrone' by focusing on detailed route generation.

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 clear usage context: waypoint ordering, travel modes, and ETA limitations (no live traffic). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for simple distance queries where 'matrix' might be better), leaving room for improvement.

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