employees__get_courier_location_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context about MCP-server throttling (not iikoCloud) and suggests caching, which is useful for an agent managing API rate limits. It does not describe return format, but that is not critical given the read-only nature and no output 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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first states the purpose and offset, the second provides ID sourcing and throttling advice. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and clear annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, ID source, and rate limit. It does not explain the exact behavior of offsetInSeconds when null, but the schema already covers that. The lack of output format information is acceptable given no output schema and the straightforward nature of the data.

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 schema descriptions for both parameters are detailed, covering offsetInSeconds and organizationIds semantics. The description adds marginal value by explaining offset is in seconds and pointing to where to get IDs, but it largely repeats schema information. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves courier coordinate history ('История координат курьеров') and specifies the offset parameter. It clearly identifies the resource and action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'get_active_courier_locations'. The word 'История' (history) sufficiently implies the distinction from current-location tools.

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 provides a concrete usage hint: where to obtain organizationIds via 'organizations__get_organizations'. It also gives throttling guidance (max 10 requests per 60s) and recommends caching. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_active_courier_locations', nor does it mention any preconditions beyond ID sourcing.

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