distance_calculate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions support for straight-line and driving distance and includes time, but omits return format, units, accuracy limits, rate limits, or the 100-origin cap already noted in the schema. Behavioral caveats are absent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the primary action and supporting detail (distance types), earning its place without wasting tokens.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, and the description is minimal. It covers the core function but leaves unanswered return values, units, and when to prefer this over sibling tools. For a tool with 3 parameters and an enum, the description is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no param-level detail beyond the schema; it does not specify coordinate order, units, or additional semantics beyond what is already documented in the input schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb '计算' (calculate) and identifies the resource (distance/time) plus the scope (multiple origins to one destination). It clearly distinguishes from sibling routing tools like driving_route and walking_route by focusing on distance measurement rather than pathfinding.

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 for distance/time queries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over routing alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool's name and purpose.

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