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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the data source and clarifies the lived_only filter, but it does not disclose return structure or pagination behavior; with an output schema present, that omission is acceptable but not fully informative.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the parameter meaning in an Args block. It is efficient, though the Args formatting is slightly mechanical and the default behavior could have been stated more directly.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional boolean parameter and an output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It explains the source, the scope, and the filter, leaving only minor details such as explicit default behavior unstated.

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%, so the description must carry the meaning of the single parameter. It does so clearly: lived_only means only return places Kyle has lived, which distinguishes the filtered result from the default lived-and-traveled result. The default false behavior is implied rather than explicitly restated.

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 states the resource: places Kyle has lived and traveled to, sourced from the travel globe on kgromero.com. It distinguishes the tool from career, contact, education, and skills siblings by focusing on travel and residence history, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_profile or get_career_timeline. The lived_only argument implies a filtering option, but the description does not state when an agent should choose this tool or what happens when lived_only is false beyond the initial sentence.

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