maps_direction_transit_integrated

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns commuting solution data, but fails to mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens if no route is found.

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 that is clear and to the point. Every part of the sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 that there are 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too vague about the return format and potential errors. It only says 'returns commuting solution data' without further detail, which is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by emphasizing that city and cityd are required for cross-city scenarios, though the schema already marks them as required. It does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers.

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 that this tool plans public transit routes (including train, bus, subway) based on start and end coordinates, and returns the commuting solution data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like driving, walking, and bicycling by specifying public transit.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for public transit planning. It explicitly mentions that in cross-city scenarios, the origin and destination cities must be provided. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though siblings imply those.

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