get_route_directions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying engine (OSRM) and, usefully, that response size is controllable via steps/overview/annotations, plus the return shape. However it does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor mention rate limits, coordinate validation failures, or error behavior.

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?

Well structured with Args/Returns/Example blocks, and the example is genuinely useful given the undocumented schema. The opening two sentences ('Calculate detailed route directions...' and 'provides comprehensive routing information...') restate the same idea, a minor redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, every parameter, and the controlling knobs for output size. No annotations exist, so it should ideally add auth/error/read-only context, but the essential information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents all eight parameters with meanings, defaults (steps=false, overview='simplified', annotations=false), and value options for mode ('car','bike','foot') and overview ('full','simplified','false') that the schema does not enumerate. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate detailed route directions between two geographic points,' naming the provider (OSRM) and the parameterized controls. It is immediately clear what the tool does, but it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_commute or suggest_meeting_point, so an agent cannot differentiate on description alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the two-point input model (routing from A to B), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative sibling named. The agent must infer that this is the point-to-point router rather than derive it from stated guidance.

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