map_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior independently. It mentions pricing and an API link but does not describe whether the tool is read-only, what data it returns, or any side effects. The cost-per-call is useful but insufficient for full behavioral transparency.

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 short but includes extraneous details (pricing, API URL) that are not essential for agent selection. While not verbose, it lacks structure and could be more focused on purpose and behavior.

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 no output schema and a minimal description, the tool's return behavior is unspecified. The description does not explain what the route planning result contains (e.g., directions, duration), leaving the agent without crucial information for invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with Chinese descriptions for each parameter (origin, destination, mode). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond these existing descriptions, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as '路线规划' (route planning) and the context '[Maps]' distinguishes it from sibling tools like map_geocode and map_poi. However, it lacks an explicit English verb and does not elaborate on the scope of routing (e.g., directions, distance).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Sibling map tools exist but are not referenced.

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