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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds context the annotations cannot: it discloses that unseen Place IDs get written into SkimGuard's own public registry, and reconciles that with the read-only hint ('never anything you or the user own'). It also specifies the 'not publicly tracked' return case for untracked/private locations.

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?

Front-loaded with what it does and what it returns, then the side-effect caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the side-effect explanation is spread over two sentences and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the shape of the answer (recency of scan, scan count, suspicious Bluetooth devices) plus the important edge case (not publicly tracked). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret the result is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so placeId, days, and response_format are already documented with formats, ranges, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the Place ID as the lookup key, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('look up SkimGuard card-skimmer scan status for a location') and the exact key (Google Place ID). This cleanly separates it from siblings like skimguard_location_devices (per-device detail) and skimguard_search_locations (discovery), so an agent can pick it 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?

Gives a concrete decision context — answering 'is this gas station / ATM / store safe to use my card at?' — and states the exclusion that private residences are deliberately not tracked. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings (e.g. location_devices or find_nearby_activity) for follow-up questions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing guide.

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