get_location_history

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine context the annotations lack: results are expressed in the configured local time zone and the payload separates stays from raw points. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but this is a read tool where that gap is minor.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and followed by output-usage and time-zone notes; nothing is wasted. The clipped opening fragment ('Route/track of a device...') is slightly terse but still readable.

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 a full output schema and rich annotations, the description only needs to add orientation, and it does: what the payload contains, how to use each list, and the time-zone convention. It is essentially complete, lacking only sibling-routing context.

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%, so all six parameters (start, end, user, device, max_points, stay_min_minutes) are already documented with formats, defaults, and bounds in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource and scope: the route/track of a device over a time range, plus distance travelled and stays. That is far more informative than the bare tool name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_last_location or get_distance, which an agent must infer.

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 gives real guidance on how to consume the result ('stays' for where-was-X questions, 'points' for the route), which is useful routing advice. However, it says nothing about when to choose this tool over get_last_location, get_distance, or owntracks_status, and lists no preconditions.

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