maps_direction_walking_by_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the return type (dict with distance, duration, turn-by-turn instructions) and a 100km route limit, which is helpful. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the tool is likely read-only and low-risk.

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 an introductory sentence, parameter list, and return value description. It is clear but slightly verbose; could be trimmed without losing information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and a constraint (100km). It differentiates from the coordinates sibling but does not compare to other walking tools or address-based tools for other modes. Still sufficient for a focused 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%, so the description compensates by explaining all four parameters in plain text, including examples (e.g., '北京市朝阳区阜通东大街6号') and the purpose of optional city parameters for geocoding accuracy, adding 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 walking route between two locations using addresses, and the tool name includes 'walking_by_address', distinguishing it from other tools like maps_bicycling_by_address or maps_direction_walking_by_coordinates.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool over the coordinates version unless there's a specific reason for coordinates, providing clear guidance for address-based walking routes. However, it does not discuss when to choose walking over other modes like driving or bicycling, which are available as siblings.

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