get_distance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state what happens for unknown towns, whether the distance is a great-circle/straight-line approximation (beyond the word 'straight-line'), whether output is rounded, or the return format. Positioned as a pure read function, but details are sparse.

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?

One concise sentence with zero wasted words. It packs the verb, resource, measurement type, and destination into a minimal, scannable format.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't specify the return unit/format, behavior for invalid input, or how it integrates with sibling tools. While simple, it lacks the behavioral details an agent needs to confidently use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'town' is one town (singular) and that distance is measured to Boston, which adds semantic context. However, it doesn't clarify whether the town name must be a specific canonical form, match sibling tool conventions, or examples of valid values.

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 the verb ('get'), resource ('distance'), and scope ('straight-line distance from one town to Boston'), defining a specific, measurable output. It's distinguishable from siblings (get_housing, get_schools, get_safety) which focus on location features rather than distance.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain use cases like comparing town proximity or filtering by distance, nor does it exclude any scenarios. The description implies a simple distance lookup but offers no context for when it would be relevant.

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