get_place_visitsWhen was I at a venue — merges place_visits, location_visits, and event locations. ($0.10; API key required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| place | Yes | ||
| place_id | No | ||
| person_ids | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| place | Yes | ||
| visits | Yes | ||
| confidence | No | ||
| people_present | No | ||
| matching_events | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it merges multiple visit data sources and explicitly mentions the $0.10 cost and API key requirement, which are beyond the structured annotations and helpful for invocation decisions.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core question, then adds two high-value details: the merged data sources and the cost/authentication requirement. No words are wasted, and the structure makes the tool's purpose instantly scannable.
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?
While the description is strong for initial selection, it is incomplete for correct invocation. With 0% schema coverage and no parameter explanations, the agent does not know how to format from/to dates, whether place_id is an alternative to place, or what person_ids controls. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the input semantics gap is significant.
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 does not explain any of the five parameters such as to, from, place_id, or person_ids. The only implicit hint is that 'place' is relevant to the venue lookup, but the description fails to clarify parameter formats, optionality, or relationships, leaving the agent to guess from the bare 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 conveys the tool's purpose: determining when the user was at a venue. It also specifies the data sources it merges (place_visits, location_visits, event locations), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_location_history or get_events, though it does not name any sibling directly.
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 implies this tool is for venue visit lookups but gives no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives such as get_location_history, get_travel_history, or get_places. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources, but get_context_pack and get_life_context overlap heavily, and get_money_between_people is an intentional duplicate alias of get_person_transactions. The rest are mostly clear due to explicit descriptions.
Naming is predominantly verb_noun snake_case with clear families (get_*, log_*, update_*, search_*, notable_*). Minor inconsistencies: create_person breaks the add_inventory_* pattern, and one-off verbs like record_, attach_, merge_ are not part of a uniform scheme.
With 64 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold. The broad personal-life domain justifies many tools, but the count creates significant selection overhead and feels bloated, especially with redundant aliases and overlapping context pack variants.
The set covers inventory, CRM, events, food, expenses, travel, places, photos, Gmail, and notable-people lookup with strong read/write/search coverage. Minor gaps include no delete operations for events/people/food (only archive/update) and no explicit place creation.