List Saved Places

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description's 'List' wording is consistent. The description adds the useful scope that only Home and Work saved places are returned, but it does not disclose response shape or any authentication expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler or redundant restatement. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and scope.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is that the sibling get_saved_places exists and likely overlaps, yet the description does not clarify the distinction or direct the agent to the alternative for broader saved-place needs.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing else the description needs to add for parameters.

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 names the verb ('List'), the resource ('saved places'), and a specific scope ('the rider's real Uber Home and Work'), which distinguishes it from a generic saved-places tool. It does not explicitly name the overlapping sibling get_saved_places, so it stops short of a 5.

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: use this tool when the rider's Home and Work saved places are needed. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to the sibling get_saved_places, so an agent must infer the right choice.

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