Place Visits

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the multi-source merge, the $0.10 cost, and the API-key requirement. It does not cover rate limits or failure behavior, but for a read-only tool with annotations present this is reasonably transparent.

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 entire description is one tight sentence that leads with the user-facing purpose and packs scope, cost, and auth requirement into minimal space. There is 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 five-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin to let an agent construct a correct call. The output schema may cover return values, but input semantics for place_id vs place, person_ids, and from/to are absent.

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 0%, and the description only implies that 'place' refers to a venue and that from/to relate to a time interval. The distinction between place and place_id, the meaning of person_ids, and expected date formats are all left unspecified.

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's opening, 'When was I at a venue,' clearly conveys the query intent, and 'merges place_visits, location_visits, and event locations' defines the resource scope. However, it does not name or contrast sibling tools such as get_location_history or get_travel_history, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 use case of retrieving venue visits is implied by 'When was I at a venue,' and the data-source merge helps an agent know what the tool covers. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools or any exclusions, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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