amap_distance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It claims to compute 'driving distance and time' but the schema shows multiple travel modes (type 0-3), a direct contradiction. It also omits important behaviors such as coordinate format, maximum of 10 origins, and distance limits for walking/cycling. The description misrepresents the tool's full capabilities.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences: '距离测量。计算多个起点到一个终点的驾车距离和时间。' There is no unnecessary wording, making it easy to scan.

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 is simple but the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the 'type' parameter's multiple modes, which is a key feature. It also does not describe output structure or limitations beyond what the schema states. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate more; it only covers the driving scenario, leaving the broader functionality undocumented.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter context by mentioning 'multiple origins to one destination' but does not elaborate on the 'type' parameter or coordinate syntax. It provides no additional value beyond the schema.

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 measures distance and time from multiple origins to one destination, with the purpose of comparing accessibility of different starting points. It distinguishes itself from sibling direction tools by focusing on multi-origin comparison. However, the qualifier 'driving' is overly specific and misleading because the schema's 'type' parameter supports walking, cycling, and straight-line distance as well.

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 gives a clear usage context: '用于比较不同出发点的可达性' (used to compare accessibility of different starting points). This implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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