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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the result is a 'likely' estimate, includes confidence and provenance, requires an API key, and costs $0.10 per call.

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?

A single sentence conveys the core purpose, uncertainty, provenance, cost, and authentication requirement without any filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every element earns its place.

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?

Given one optional parameter fully documented in the schema, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential operational facts including cost and API key requirement. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly appears missing.

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 schema already describes the only parameter, 'at', as an ISO timestamp with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by distinguishing 'current' vs 'at-time', which clarifies that omitting the parameter yields the current estimate and providing it yields an estimate for that time.

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 names the resource, a place estimate at the current or a specified time, with confidence and provenance. It is understandable, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_life_context or get_location_history.

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 phrasing 'current or at-time place' implies this tool is for point-in-time location estimation, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Cost and API key requirements are practical prerequisites, but not usage guidance.

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