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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, the `total`/`returned`/`nextOffset` pagination contract, and the filtering hint.

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?

Three terse, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination instruction earns its place because it is essential for correct iteration.

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 a small required enum and fully specified parameters, the description sufficiently explains ordering, filtering, and pagination even without an output schema. An agent can page through all results by following `nextOffset` and comparing `total` to `returned`.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, an enum, and defaults. The description reinforces offset behavior via `nextOffset` and motivates `type`, but does not need to add per-parameter semantics.

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 ('list') and resource ('everything marked as visited'), and adds ordering ('newest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `list_trips`, since the object is visited items rather than trips.

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?

The description implies the use case: retrieve visited items and optionally narrow by `type` to reduce payload size. It does not explicitly route around sibling tools such as `search_places` or `list_trips`, so the agent must infer selection from name and context.

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