Route between places

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the tool. The description adds that waypoints are visited in given order and that data is from OpenStreetMap, providing useful context beyond annotations. A small gap: does not mention whether route is cached or data freshness, but that's minor given readOnlyHint coverage.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose and provide actionable usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence adds distinct value.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (4 params, 2 required), the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral traits. It lacks details on what exactly the output contains (e.g., duration, distance format), but the core is well addressed for selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that waypoints are traversed in order, that include_steps gives a turn-by-turn summary, and that profile defines the travel mode. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 calculates real-world travel distance and time between two or more places using specific travel modes on OpenStreetMap data. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternatives like route_matrix and optimize_route.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use route_matrix to compare many pairs, optimize_route to reorder stops.' Also clarifies waypoint ordering and optional turn-by-turn steps.

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