maps_bicycling_by_coordinates

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

The description discloses that the tool considers bridges, one-way streets, and road closures, and supports routes up to 500km. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden.

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 concise with a one-sentence summary, parameter details, and behavioral notes. It is well-structured and front-loaded. Minor redundancy: parameter details could be integrated into schema descriptions, but the description is still efficient.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameter format, return type (Dict with distance, duration, instructions), and key behavioral constraints (bridges, one-way streets, road closures, 500km limit). With no output schema, it adequately explains return values. The description is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), but the description clearly explains the format 'longitude,latitude' with examples for both origin_coordinates and destination_coordinates. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Plans a bicycle route between two coordinates,' with a specific verb and resource. The tool name itself is descriptive, and it distinguishes from siblings like maps_bicycling_by_address (address input) and maps_direction_walking_by_coordinates (different travel mode).

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 bicycle route planning with coordinate inputs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., address-based or other modes). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.

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