get_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the external dependency (Kakao Mobility API) and enumerates the returned fields, which is more than the annotations provide. Minor tension: it describes an external API call while annotations set openWorldHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then Args/Returns blocks that are easy to scan. The Returns block is justified because there is no output schema, though the prose is slightly padded ('using Fuel Station Compass', parenthetical examples) relative to its information content.

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?

With no output schema, the Returns section correctly documents distance, duration, toll, taxi fare, and resolved origin/destination. Inputs are fully covered. The only real gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to sibling tools, which is a usage concern rather than a completeness-of-call concern.

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% and the schema has no enums, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it documents all three parameters, gives concrete address/place-name examples for origin and destination, and supplies the RECOMMEND | TIME | DISTANCE value set plus the default that the schema omits entirely.

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 (Retrieves) and resource (route information between origin and destination), names the upstream service (Kakao Mobility API) and the branded surface (Fuel Station Compass). This clearly separates it from the two sibling gas-station search tools, which find stations rather than compute routes.

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 says what the tool does but never says when to choose it over the siblings, nor that find_cheapest_gas_stations_on_route is the natural follow-up to a route it returns. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance.

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