maps_bicycling_by_address

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses important behaviors: considers bridges, one-way streets, road closures, and route limit of 500km. It also describes return structure (distance, duration, turn-by-turn). However, it does not mention authentication or rate limits, which could be relevant.

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 well-structured with a concise main sentence followed by Args/Returns sections. It is slightly verbose with example addresses but maintains clarity. Every sentence serves a purpose, though could be slightly trimmed.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, parameter details, and behavioral traits (bridges, one-ways, limit). It lacks error handling hints but is sufficiently complete 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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed parameter info in the Args section, including types and examples (e.g., 'str', example addresses). This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions, adding context beyond the bare schema definition.

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 it plans a bicycle route using addresses, with specific verb 'Plans' and resource 'bicycle route'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'maps_bicycling_by_coordinates' by explicitly mentioning 'using addresses' and recommending addresses unless coordinates are needed.

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?

It explicitly recommends using this tool over coordinates unless there's a specific reason, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also mentions the route limit of 500km and return format, aiding in decision-making.

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