Analyze commute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool compares modes and returns directions, but it does not mention limitations, error handling, possible time-sensitivity, or operational constraints. For a read-only analysis tool, this is a minimal disclosure and leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no redundant phrases. It front-loads the core action and enumerates key output components, making it easy to parse and efficiently using the available space.

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 tool has six parameters and no output schema, but the description effectively communicates the essential behavior and output fields. It does not explain optional parameters like 'depart_at' or how the modes array affects the analysis, but these are already defined in the schema. Given the moderate complexity and strong schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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%, meaning all parameters are already described in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics or clarify relationships between parameters, but it also does not detract from the schema's clarity. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the structured data does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Perform') and identifies the resource ('commute analysis between home and work locations'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_route_directions by emphasizing multi-mode comparison. It also enumerates the key output components (distances, durations, turn-by-turn directions), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 implies a commute-specific use case (between home and work) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool compared to alternatives like get_route_directions. It provides no exclusions or guidance on when a simpler routing tool would be more appropriate, so the usage context is only partially clear.

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