create_route_from_to

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It states the return is a GPX representation but does not clarify if the route is computed on-the-fly or stored, nor any side effects, auth, or limitations. 'Create a route' might imply mutation, but likely it's a read-only computation.

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 clear main sentence followed by a structured docstring listing parameters. No extraneous information, and each sentence adds value.

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?

With an output schema present, the description adequately covers all parameters and return type. It mentions optional waypoints and the GPX format. Minor gaps: no error cases or performance details, but sufficient for a route creation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the docstring compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and format (e.g., coordinate order, route type examples). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type information.

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 creates a route from coordinates to destination with optional waypoints. It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on searching or getting other data.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search_known_routes' or 'get_reachable_area'. The description only explains parameters but does not provide context for selection.

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