maps_direction_driving_by_coordinates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns route data (distance, duration, details), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but incomplete for critical behavioral context.

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 highly concise: one sentence for the purpose followed by structured Args/Returns. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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?

For a tool with two simple parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides everything needed: purpose, parameter format, and return type (dictionary with distance, duration, details). Despite the lack of output schema, the description's return summary is sufficient for an agent to understand the result. All relevant information is covered.

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 input schema has zero description for parameters, but the description's Args section fully compensates by providing the exact format ('经度,纬度') and a concrete example. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, enabling correct usage. No enum or nested objects exist, so the description covers the semantic gap 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?

The description clearly states the tool plans driving routes using start and end coordinates for cars/sedans, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like maps_direction_driving_by_address (for addresses) and maps_direction_transit_integrated_by_coordinates (for transit). The verbose verb 'plan' and resource 'driving route' are explicit.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where coordinates are preferred over addresses, nor does it exclude use cases like transit or walking. Sibling tools such as maps_direction_driving_by_address and maps_direction_transit_integrated_by_coordinates require differentiation, but the description lacks such guidance.

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