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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds the feature-flag dependency and the 7-day maximum window, both of which constrain whether a call will succeed. It omits what a location record contains and how paging terminates beyond 'Paged', which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and prerequisite front-loaded and the constraint/scope notes after. The opening is a bare noun phrase rather than a sentence, which slightly weakens the lead, but nothing is redundant.

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 read-only, 5-parameter, fully documented list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: prerequisite, required window, span cap, scope control, and pagination. The only material gap is that it does not say what fields a location event returns, which matters somewhat since there is no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still earns credit by explaining the behavioral consequence of omitting user_id (returns all company users) rather than just its literal meaning, and by restating that both dates are required and capped at a 7-day span. It says nothing about use_created_at, which the schema already handles.

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 identifies a specific resource — GPS location events of field users — and pairs it with the tool name's 'list' verb, so the agent knows it retrieves location records. It also names the gating prerequisite (tracker feature). It stops short of an explicit verb+scope sentence, but no sibling tool competes for this resource, so disambiguation is not a concern.

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?

'Needs the tracker feature' is a real precondition, and 'Omit user_id for all users of the company' tells the agent how to widen scope. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and no routing to alternatives (e.g., whether gocanvas_get_submission or list_submissions is preferable when the goal is a specific record's location).

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