get_navigation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact content returned (distance, ETA, posted limit, speeding). It does not cover edge cases (e.g., no active route), but given the annotations and the simplicity of the tool, the added context is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the core resource ('Routing status') and lists the returned fields immediately. Every word is informative with no redundancy.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and scope. Nothing needed for correct invocation or understanding is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the description carries no parameter-specific burden. The description conveys the semantic output meaning, which fully compensates for the lack of parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource ('Routing status') and the precise data returned (distance, ETA, posted limit, speeding status). It is distinct from siblings like get_truck_state or get_fuel_status, which deal with other domains.

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 implies usage for retrieving routing information but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as check_speeding (which focuses solely on speeding) or get_trip_summary. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided, so the agent must infer from context.

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