lifedb_geo_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: when `limit` truncates, points are uniformly downsampled (keeping first and last) rather than head-only truncated. It does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or cost, but the truncation disclosure is a meaningful addition beyond structure.

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, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the output tuple format leads, followed by time formats, use case, and truncation behavior. Every clause carries information, though the phrasing is terse and could be marginally more readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the description still adds output shape, param formats, and truncation semantics. For a 3-parameter read tool this is largely complete; only access/permission context is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that start/end accept ISO time or epoch seconds and that limit truncates via uniform downsampling. This covers all three parameters with format and behavior detail the schema lacks.

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 names the specific resource (raw GPS point sequence with ts/lat/lon/alt/speed) and the intended consumer (trajectory rendering), so the agent understands it fetches a geospatial track rather than aggregate stats. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like lifedb_around or lifedb_query_month.

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?

It gives a concrete usage context — feed the output to deck.gl TripsLayer / Manim for trajectory rendering — which tells the agent when this tool is the right fit. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion cases, so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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