compute_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: traffic inclusion only for DRIVE and TWO_WHEELER, and the performance note about include_steps increasing response size. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, well-structured, and every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides key usage details for endpoints, traffic, and a critical performance trade-off. No filler or repetition.

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 11 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the most critical points (endpoint formats, traffic, steps) but omits details on other parameters like units, alternatives, or departure_time. The output schema can handle return format, so the gap is primarily in parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains origin and destination endpoint formats, traffic by travel mode, and include_steps impact, but does not cover all 11 parameters (e.g., units, avoid_tolls, alternatives, intermediates, departure_time). The provided clarifications are helpful but incomplete.

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 the tool computes a route between two places for multiple travel modes and returns time, distance, and warnings. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compute_route_matrix by focusing on a single route, and from general search tools by its specific route-computation purpose.

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 explains three valid endpoint formats and their precision trade-offs, and notes that include_steps should only be used when needed due to response size. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or compute_route_matrix instead, or when not to use this tool.

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