records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context by noting that each record includes the window it was measured over, and that these windows differ across records. However, it does not disclose other potentially relevant behaviors such as whether the tool filters by current user, what units are returned, or any data freshness caveats.

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 highly concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core idea ('The extremes'), then provides a clean list of record types, and finishes with an important nuance about measurement windows. Every word earns its place; no fluff 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately sets expectations by listing the specific record types and indicating that each has a measurement window. It could go a bit further by clarifying what 'fastest' or 'farthest' refer to, but the level of detail is sufficient for a user to infer the tool's scope.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description has no responsibility to explain parameters, and it correctly avoids any parameter-related noise. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps because there are none.

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 clearly enumerates the content of the tool (various extremes like highest point, fastest, farthest from home, compass records, longest trip, most cities in a day, longest flight), making its purpose evident. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' but the itemization effectively communicates what the tool provides and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual data points.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., top_places, trips, travel_stats). It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Usage context is only implied by the fact that it aggregates extremes.

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