get_card_location_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat safety. However, it adds no behavioral context such as pagination semantics, cursor reuse, or scope constraints, and says nothing about how the several pagination parameters interact.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, free of filler, and immediately communicates the core purpose. It is appropriately concise even if under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 8 parameters, nested offset objects, and 0 required fields, the description is too sparse to orient an agent correctly. It never mentions pagination, detail levels, or which identifier to supply, even though an output schema means return fields need not be explained.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it adds no parameter-level meaning at all. It does not explain card_id vs. url, the detail enum, limit, offset, or how text_offsets and section_offsets are used for pagination.

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 (Read) and resource (card movement and state history), making the tool's function immediately identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling card-listing tools, but the resource itself is distinct enough to avoid confusion with get_card or list_card_tags.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_card, get_card_timelogs, or list_card_blockers. It only states what is returned, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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