Log Place Visit

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

Annotations confirm readOnlyHint=false, so 'MUTATES' is consistent and the description adds real operational context: required fields, aliases, idempotency behavior for evidence_expense_id, and cost/auth ('$0.10; API key required'). Those cost and auth details are the kind of info annotations cannot carry. It stops at 4 because it doesn't say what happens on conflict or what the output returns.

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?

Single dense sentence: mutation + scope + required/optional params + steering + cost/auth, all front-loaded. No filler; every clause carries an instruction.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain returns, and it covers mutation, required params, aliases, idempotency, and cost. It is nearly complete for invocation, though full parameter semantics for the remaining untyped params are still absent on both sides.

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 only 33% (15 params, most undocumented), so the schema gets a 3 baseline and the description must compensate. It does list required vs optional fields, alias relationships (date/arrived_at, name/place, idempotency_key/request_id), and enum-ish source values (uber|mcp), which adds usable meaning. But several parameters (confidence, evidence_event_id, request_id) are left to the schema, so it only partially closes the gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('MUTATES place_visits') and gives concrete examples of what qualifies (Uber dropoff, address evidence), which distinguishes it from read siblings like get_place_visits. It does not explicitly name the mutation alternative it replaces (e.g., 'use instead of log_event for location records'), so it stops short of 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?

It gives a clear positive criterion (map/history digs) and one explicit steering rule: 'Prefer this over stuffing streets only into expenses,' which routes the agent away from a plausible wrong sibling. The condition is implied rather than fully spelled out with when-not-to-use cases.

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