plan_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'public OSRM service,' which hints at external dependency and potential rate limits or availability issues, but does not elaborate on what happens on service failure, whether results are best-effort approximations, or the response structure beyond 'distance and duration.' For a network-dependent tool with zero annotation coverage, this is under-disclosed about reliability and failure modes.

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 a single, concise sentence that communicates the verb, resource, and data source. Every element earns its place - nothing is redundant or wasteful. This is exemplary conciseness for a two-parameter routing tool.

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 relatively simple two-parameter geo tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function. However, given the external OSRM dependency and no annotations, it should ideally disclose rate limits, geographic coverage limitations, or service reliability caveats. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description adequately conveys the basic operation but falls short on operational caveats that an agent should know before invoking a public third-party API.

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 for parameter semantics. The description mentions 'coordinates' generally and the schema provides well-structured origin/destination objects with latitude/longitude and validation ranges. However, the description adds no detail about the format expectations beyond what the schema structure already communicates (latitude/longitude numbers). A baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema is self-explanatory for these two parameters, but the description adds nothing beyond the structured fields.

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 tool's purpose: estimate a driving route with distance and duration between coordinates using OSRM. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') with a clear resource ('driving route') and adds the data source (OSRM). Among siblings like get_weather, resolve_location, and compare_viewpoints, this is distinguishable as a route-planning utility, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from any sibling (none are routing-focused, so differentiation is implicit).

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 implies usage context ('estimate driving route... between coordinates') with the key detail that it uses a public OSRM service. However, it does not state when NOT to use it, what alternatives exist (e.g., walking/bicycling routes, driving vs transit), or any constraints like the service being free/rate-limited or the fact that public OSRM may lack coverage in some regions. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative guidance.

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