loki_get_phlebo_actual_route

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description adds that it returns timestamped pings with metrics. No contradictions with annotations. It doesn't detail rate limits or auth, but given readOnlyHint, this is acceptable.

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 sentences packed with information: first defines what the tool returns, second explains its purpose. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description lists the key output components (lat/long, speed, battery, temperature) and the use case, making it complete enough for an agent to understand what it provides.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (date and phlebo_id). The description adds context that date refers to the day of history but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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 states the tool provides GPS location history for a rider on a date, including lat/long, speed, battery, and temperature. It is specific about the resource and fields, and distinguishes from the sibling 'planned_route' tool by using 'actual'.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'verify where a rider actually went and device/coolbox health.' While it doesn't list negative cases, the contrast with sibling tools (planned_route) is implicit and sufficient.

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