my_records

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool provides personal extremes, but it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, what data source it uses, whether values are all-time or time-bounded, or what the output shape is.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, opening with 'Your personal extremes' before listing categories. Every word contributes, though the fragmentary phrasing prevents a perfect 5.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the list of extremes provides a minimal viable sense of what is returned. However, it leaves ambiguities such as 'closest' and 'lowest' of what, whether these are all-time or recent, and the exact output format, so an agent may need to discover these details from results.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description does not add parameter-level detail because none is needed.

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?

Identifies the resource as the user's personal records and lists specific extremes (closest, lowest, most directly overhead, busiest day), which distinguishes it from global/current-view siblings. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'shows', so it stops short of a full 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like sighting_history, spotting_stats, or global_stats. The word 'personal' implies a distinction, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or alternative comparison.

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