get_my_places

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the server may be unconnected, in which case `connected` is false and `message` explains how to connect, plus a privacy constraint not to repeat the data to others. However, it doesn't describe the shape of the returned place list or how recents are ordered/limited, so with readOnlyHint already declaring safety the description stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three short blocks: what it returns, when it is available, when to call it, and a privacy caveat. The most decision-relevant information (the resource identity and the 'call this only...' routing hint) is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

Covers the failure mode (unconnected API key, `connected`/`message` fields), the routing decision vs. sibling trip tools, and the data-sensitivity constraint. With no output schema and no parameters, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to document and nothing to compensate for. Baseline for a no-param tool applies, and the description appropriately spends its words on availability instead.

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?

Names the specific resource and its contents (Home, Work, favorites, recent destinations) and its origin (synced from CommuteScout site and apps). It also distinguishes itself from the trip tools, which already accept 'home'/'work'/place names, so an agent can tell why this tool exists separately from plan_trip or find_place.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage: 'call this only to show or choose among them,' and points out that trip tools already resolve 'home', 'work' or a place name directly. This gives both the when and the when-not with a named alternative.

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