maps_read_route_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that returned labels/text are untrusted external data and notes it is disabled by default, which are important behavioral traits. It does not detail permissions or effects, but for a read-only tool this is adequate.

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, with two short sentences that front-load the main action and immediately follow up with caveats. Every sentence adds value 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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description sufficiently describes what it does, what it returns (a bounded summary of untrusted text), and its availability constraints. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to convey. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add anything beyond what the schema already implies (empty properties).

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 reads a small bounded summary from the active Google Maps route UI, using a specific verb (read) and resource (route summary). It distinguishes from sibling tools like maps_read_place_summary by specifying the route UI context.

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 context on when to use it ('intended only for the user's active request') and notes it is disabled by default, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the explicit exclusion criterion.

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