get_recent_positions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a summary (point count, distance, time range, bounding box) and optionally the points array. It does not discuss side effects, permissions, or idempotency, but the behavior is adequately transparent for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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 concise (a few lines) and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (summary fields and optional points). For a tool with 3 parameters and clear context, the description is complete and leaves no significant gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds rich meaning: it explains device_id (from list_pets), hours (default 24), and include_points (default False, with guidance to save context). This goes well beyond the schema and helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 'Get recent position history (breadcrumb trail) for a pet,' specifying the verb (get), resource (position history), and scope (recent). It distinguishes from siblings like get_pet_location (current location) and get_pet_distance_from_home by indicating historical trail data.

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 clear context for usage (retrieving historical position data) and implies when to use it (when history is needed). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings like get_pet_location.

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