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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: a $0.10 cost and API-key requirement, plus the data derivation path. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, keeping it just below top marks.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core scope comes first and operational details (cost/auth) are appended compactly. Slightly dense but efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description is adequate on purpose, cost, and auth, but with low parameter coverage it leaves the to/from/limit inputs unexplained, falling short of fully complete for a 4-param tool.

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 only 25% (only include_eras is documented, matching the 'optional life_eras' mention). The description adds nothing about to/from date semantics or limit behavior, so it fails to compensate for the large documentation gap on three of four 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 states a specific resource (home/residence history) and explicitly distinguishes it from trips, even disclosing how it is derived (trips with metadata.kind=residence from log_travel plus life_eras). An agent can tell it apart from get_trips/get_travel_history without opening the schema.

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 an implied usage cue ('Use for Boylston / Madeira / current home cards') and notes it is separate from trips, but names no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions relative to get_trips or get_location_history. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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