maps_directions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses that 'Origin may be omitted so Google Maps can use the browser/device location when available' and that waypoints/avoid constraints remain bounded. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns or whether it opens a new tab, navigates the current page, or requires a browser environment.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence contributes useful information, though 'Optional waypoints and avoid constraints remain bounded' is somewhat vague. No redundant filler is present.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and sits among many similar sibling tools. The description conveys the primary behavior and key optionality, but it does not state the return value, side effects, or what distinguishes it from maps_render_directions. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps for an agent to make an informed selection.

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 adds semantic value for origin (omission enables device location) and notes bounds on waypoints/avoid. It does not explain mode, destination, or how parameters translate to Maps URL parameters. The schema itself carries detailed enums and constraints, but the description only partially fills the 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?

The description states 'Open Google Maps directions using documented Maps URL parameters,' which clearly identifies the action (opening directions) and the resource (Google Maps). It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling maps_render_directions, but the verb 'Open' and mention of URL parameters imply an external Maps launch rather than an in-app render.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like maps_render_directions or maps_get_route_share_link. It implies usage by describing the action, but it does not state scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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