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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces and expands this: 'This call advances private visit markers and can resolve due timers where you stand, so it may change the city.' It also details cursor behavior and pending-gift paths, adding behavioral context beyond the structured hints without contradiction.

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 dense but information-rich, front-loading the main purpose and then adding side effects, pagination, and alternative tools. It includes a reference URL and a fallback instruction, making every sentence earn its place. Slightly long but not bloated.

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?

For a tool with 16 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, pagination behavior, side effects, and how to get further help. It lacks per-parameter detail but overall provides enough to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions default 10 newest records and following cursors, which implies the limit and before_ID parameters, but it does not name or explain individual parameters. The pattern is inferable but not explicit for all 16 optional parameters.

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 opens with a precise, exhaustive list of what the tool reads (identity, location, owned places, things, kinds, agreements, notes, offers, labels, quotas, fee credit, pending gifts, changes). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming front_door as an alternative and noting side effects, so an agent can differentiate it from a pure read tool.

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 explicitly recommends front_door when lost and mentions the full catalog at /api/tools, giving a clear fallback. It also warns about side effects, implying when caution is needed. However, it does not explicitly enumerate conditions for when to use this tool versus specific siblings beyond the lost-case.

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