maps_direction_transit_integrated_by_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return type (Dict with distance, duration, instructions) and transit modes considered (buses, subways, trains), but lacks details on error handling, time constraints, or edge cases.

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 reasonably concise with a clear intro and structured args/returns sections. The args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but serves as inline documentation.

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 the complexity (4 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, arguments, and return values adequately. It explains cross-city requirements and transit options, but does not address error scenarios or when to consider alternative travel modes.

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 description provides detailed parameter descriptions, including examples for addresses and notes on city parameters being required for cross-city transit. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 public transit route between two locations using addresses, which distinguishes it from coordinates-based and other transport mode tools. The verb 'plans a public transit route' is specific and aligns with the tool name.

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 recommends using this tool over the coordinates variant unless there is a specific reason for coordinates, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like driving or walking tools.

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