transit_route

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions that it calculates a transit plan, but does not describe return format, edge cases, or side effects (if any). The mention of including metro/bus adds slight context but is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 sentence with no filler words, making it concise. However, it is somewhat under-specified for an 8-parameter tool, which prevents a perfect score. There is no structural complexity, but it is not verbose.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-line description does not explain output structure, handling of cross-city queries (cityd), or how it fits into the broader routing workflow. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke this tool without additional context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., coordinate format, strategy options, date/time defaults). It only loosely refers to 'two points' with no additional detail.

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 it computes public transit transfer plans between two points, including metro and bus. This is a specific verb+resource and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like driving_route or walking_route, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 public transit planning (as opposed to driving or walking), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like driving_route or distance_calculate. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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