Get device location history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations do not: the result is gated on location tracking being enabled for the device. It omits what happens when tracking is off (empty result vs. error) and whether the response is paginated or time-bounded.

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 with the resource and the enabling precondition front-loaded, and no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical is slightly buried for a condition that determines whether the tool returns anything at all.

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 four-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose and the key precondition. The notable gap is what happens when start_date/end_date are omitted — whether there is a default window or the full history is returned — which directly affects how an agent should call it.

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 100% and every parameter carries an example-bearing description, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that dates are optional, adding no meaning beyond the schema about start_date/end_date pairing or time_zone defaults.

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 and resource: 'Get reported locations for a device'. The 'reported' qualifier signals these are stored/reported positions rather than live tracking. It is distinguishable from the sibling get_device, though the description never names siblings to anchor that distinction.

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?

Adds one real precondition ('only if location tracking is enabled for it') and notes dates are optional, which implies the call works without a range. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. get_device or device_health_summary) and no guidance on choosing a range.

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