dawarich_find_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only discloses that results are raw points. It does not mention pagination, anomaly filtering behavior, ordering, or side effects. 'Find' implies read-only, but important behavioral details are left to the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning their place: one states the core function, the other guides tool selection. No redundant or filler language.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 8 parameters with zero schema descriptions, and the description omits all parameter semantics. It gives a high-level selection heuristic but is not complete enough for an agent to invoke filtering/pagination correctly.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter guidance. It ignores all 8 parameters (start_at/end_at, pagination, slim, anomaly flags) without explaining semantics or formats, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Find raw Dawarich points') and the qualifier 'raw' clearly separates it from sibling tools that return visits, timeline, or map context. It states exactly what the tool returns.

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?

'Prefer timeline/map context unless point evidence is needed' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (point-evidence needs) and when to choose alternatives (timeline/map context). This is actionable and distinguishes from siblings.

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