Get route directions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (summary, turn-by-turn, geometry, waypoints) and how to control response size via steps/overview/annotations. This goes beyond the input schema and gives useful behavioral context, though it could mention error handling or route availability.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and outputs, and ends with actionable parameter guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose, outputs, and response size controls. It could be more complete by mentioning potential limitations (e.g., no route found, coordinate validity), but for this complexity level it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating that steps/overview/annotations control the response size, which is semantic guidance not present in the schema descriptions. This raises the score above baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the tool calculates route directions between two geographic points using OSRM, with specific outputs (summary, turn-by-turn, geometry, waypoints). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like find_nearby_places or geocode_address by focusing on route calculations between points.

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 clearly implies usage for any point-to-point route calculation scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools. This qualifies as clear context without exclusions.

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