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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that presences are derived from unlocks and listing the returned fields. It does not cover pagination behavior or auth requirements, but it exceeds what the annotations alone provide.

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 followed by the endpoint. Every phrase earns its place: it names the subject, scope, derivation, and returned fields without filler. It is appropriately sized for a list tool.

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 list tool with full parameter documentation and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the data source and returned fields, compensating for the absence of an output schema. It omits pagination behavior, but the schema covers limit/offset with descriptions. A minor gap keeps it from 5.

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 all four parameters (date, limit, offset, place_id) are fully documented in the input schema. The description only implicitly references 'place' and 'day' and does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (list/who was present), resource (presences at a place), and scope (on a given day), and adds the data derivation (derived from unlocks) plus returned fields (actor, first/last unlock, last door). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kisi_search_events or kisi_list_users without needing to open 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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Who was present at a place on a given day', which signals the tool's context clearly. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as kisi_search_events. It is the minimum viable guidance rather than a strong routing instruction.

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