Places along a driving route

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: results are ordered by position on the route with off-road distance, and Balad samples only up to 12 boxes so mid-route places on long trips are missed. That limitation is critical for the agent to know and is available nowhere else.

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?

Two tight paragraphs: purpose and examples first, then the coverage caveat and the pointer to bl_place. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the essential call semantics plus a return-format hint (km_from_start, off-road distance). It could say slightly more about what each result contains, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear per-parameter descriptions (category slug or free text, limit range, km bounds, open_now, max_off_route_km), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the framing that `what` is a single kind of place and that results are measured by km_from_start, which is modest added value over the baseline.

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 with scope: 'Find places of one kind ... along the suggested driving route between two points.' The examples ('a gas station on my way to Shiraz') make the along-route concept unmistakable and distinguish it from point-based siblings like bl_nearby and bl_search.

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?

Natural-language example queries tell the agent when this tool fits, and 'Details of a place: bl_place' routes follow-up lookups to the right sibling. It does not explicitly contrast with bl_nearby or bl_nearest_by_drive, so the choice between proximity and route-corridor search is left partly to inference.

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