top_places

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering (most time first) and output fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention data source, potential inaccuracies, or that this is a read-only aggregation, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and output, and each sentence contributes. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values (address, city, source label, stops, hours) and ordering. It omits caveats like pagination or data source limitations, but for a listing tool with well-specified schema, this is nearly complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning 'address' in the output, which indirectly relates to the search filter. It does not explain parameter interactions or defaults beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool returns places ordered by time spent, with specific fields (address, city, source label, stops, hours). It also gives explicit use cases ('where do I actually spend my time' or to find an address), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like trips or stays.

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?

Provides clear use contexts: 'where do I actually spend my time' and 'find an address'. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient to direct an agent.

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