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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: results are normalized, venue-level by default, and not raw GPS noise, plus an API key and cost are required. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint, the description does not need to belabor safety, and it adds meaningful nuance.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded and the cost/auth caveat is appended compactly.

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 output schema and read-only annotations reduce the burden there, but the description still omits parameter meanings and sibling differentiation. For a six-parameter tool, an agent needs more than one implicit precision hint to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at one parameter: 'venue-level by default' implies a precision default. The other five parameters (to, from, city, place, country) receive no semantic explanation, leaving the agent to guess how they combine.

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 scopes the tool to normalized visit history at venue-level rather than raw GPS noise, which distinguishes it from a raw location feed. It lacks a direct contrast with siblings like get_place_visits or get_travel_history, but the resource and its normalizing behavior are specific.

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 only guidance is that an API key is required and the call costs $0.10. There is no indication of when to prefer this over get_travel_history, get_place_visits, get_location_context, or get_cities_visited, and no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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