maps_get_route_share_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool never reads clipboard contents, is intentionally transit-only, targets the visible Share directions dialog, and depends on Interactive Assist. It does not describe failure behavior or exact output format, but the disclosed constraints are substantial.

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 focused sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and prerequisites following. The phrasing 'currently live-observed JA/en-US share surface' is slightly technical but still earns its place by clarifying platform constraints. No unnecessary filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential UI-state prerequisites, route type restriction, and environment requirement. It lacks explicit return-format detail and error/fallback behavior, but the core information needed to invoke it successfully is present.

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 only provides min/max length, so the description's statement that expectedOrigin and expectedDestination must match the active canonical directions request adds meaningful constraints. However, 'canonical' is not defined, and the description does not explain where these values come from or what format they should take. Given 0% schema coverage, this is partial but adequate compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource: the Google Maps-generated share URL from the visible Share directions dialog for a selected simple transit route. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like maps_get_place_share_link and maps_get_search_share_link.

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 explicitly states when it is appropriate to use the tool: after maps_select_route, only for transit routes, only when expectedOrigin/expectedDestination match the active canonical directions request, and only when Interactive Assist is enabled. It also implies a when-not by being transit-only.

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