generate_route_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal an important behavior—both endpoints are pinned automatically—and gives an example, but it does not address side effects, map lifecycle, failure behavior, or asynchronous status. Useful but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences plus one example contain the core purpose, a behavioral warning, and a concrete invocation pattern. There is no filler or repeated schema 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?

The description, combined with full schema coverage, covers required parameters, optional mode/place, and a critical sibling warning. It does not describe return/status details, and there is no output schema, but that is not blocking for a map-generation tool with such a clear call pattern.

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 description coverage is 100%, so from, to, mode, and place are all documented in the schema. The description adds an example and the auto-pinning context, but it does not provide significant parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'computes' a walking/driving route and 'generates' a map with it overlaid. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the generate_markers_map sibling by stating that endpoints are pinned automatically, so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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 contains an explicit exclusion: 'do not also call generate_markers_map for them,' which directly guides tool selection against a sibling. The inline example also gives a concrete call shape, further clarifying when and how to use it.

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