Get User Venue History

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does convey read-only semantics and the deduplication/aggregation model (unique venues, counts, last-visit). However, it is silent on permission requirements for looking up another user's history, how the date filters interact with the aggregation, and pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit field.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and the returned fields, and no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Purpose and return shape are covered, and an output schema exists so result fields need not be explained further. The only real gap is guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling check-in and mayorship tools.

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 username, limit, after_date (inclusive) and before_date (exclusive) are already fully documented with formats and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning on top of that, 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?

States a specific verb (get) plus resource (unique venues a user has visited) and even characterizes the aggregation (visit counts, last-visit timestamps). This clearly separates it from raw-checkin siblings like get_user_checkins, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing is given. The aggregated framing ('unique venues', 'visit counts') implicitly tells the agent this is the rollup view rather than the raw check-in feed, but that inference is left to the reader.

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