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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true; the description carries the rest. It adds material behavior not in the structured data: audit results are paged, long tracks produce many audit points, and there is an access asymmetry on shared trips where the audit is restricted to the owner. Return-shape details are only partially covered, keeping it from a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and modes, then moves to the access caveat and finally to unit conventions. The trailing unit sentences (UTC ISO 8601 timestamps, integer meters, integer seconds) are useful but read as a block of conventions rather than being woven into the relevant sentences.

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, the description has to convey return semantics, and it does so partially: drop reasons per point, paged audit results, and the unit conventions for timestamps, distances, and durations. It leaves the exact fields of the `get` payload implicit, so a small gap remains.

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 reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: it explains that offset/limit exist specifically to page audit results and warns that long tracks have many points, plus it reinforces the 6-character case-sensitive alphanumeric ID format stated in the pattern.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Read a leg's GPX track") and further splits the tool into two concrete modes, `get` (current track) and `audit` (kept/dropped points with drop reasons). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the sibling `leg_read`, which also operates on a leg, so an agent could still hesitate between the two.

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?

It gives clear context for both actions and a real usage constraint: on a trip shared with the caller, `get` reads the track but the audit remains owner-only. It does not name alternatives or state explicit "do not use this for X" exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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