mapbox_get_directions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of coordinate limits, token requirements, whether routes are cached, or what is returned — so for a 7-parameter routing call it contributes almost no extra behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too spare for a tool with this many options.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and annotations present, the definition is callable, but there is no output schema and the description says nothing about what a directions response contains (distance, duration, geometry, steps) or about limits such as the number of waypoints. That leaves a meaningful gap for a routing tool.

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%, with both enums and the coordinate format documented inline, so the schema carries the burden. The description contributes nothing about parameters, which is baseline 3 under full coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('get turn-by-turn directions between two or more locations') and states the provider, so an agent can tell what it does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as ptv_route_directions or mapbox_geocode_forward, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over the geocoding, static-map, or other routing siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the words 'directions between locations'.

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