route_valhalla

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses use of public demo (best-effort, no SLA), option for own instance, and ability to add route geometry to project. No mention of authentication or side effects beyond adding a layer.

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?

Concise at 4 sentences, front-loaded purpose, then parameter details. No wasted words, well-structured.

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?

Covers main parameters and key behaviors. Output schema exists, so return value details are partially covered. Lacks listing all costing options but gives examples. Adequate 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 0%, but description explains waypoints format, costing examples, base_url optionality, and add_to_project effect. Layer_name parameter is not explained. Overall, adds significant meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states 'Compute a route between waypoints via Valhalla' and distinguishes from OSRM by mentioning 'richer costing models'. It also lists example costing modes.

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?

Provides clear context for use (richer costing than OSRM), explains waypoints and costing, and notes the public demo limitations. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with other routing siblings like route_isochrone.

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