get_travel

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source (a travel globe on a personal site), which usefully implies the result is a curated public list rather than exhaustive travel records. It does not mention ordering, coverage, or limits.

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?

Two short elements with no filler; the purpose sentence is front-loaded and the argument note follows. The 'Args:' formatting is a stylistic artifact but does not obscure anything.

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 an output schema present and a single optional boolean parameter, the description needs only to convey what the tool returns and what the flag does, and it does both. The main residual gap is that the distinction between lifed and traveled results when the flag is omitted is only implied.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does explain that lived_only restricts results to lived places. However, it omits the boolean type and the default of false, so an agent must open the schema to learn that omitting it returns traveled places as well.

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 states a specific resource (places Kyle has lived and traveled to) with a concrete provenance note (the travel globe on kgromero.com), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_profile or get_interests. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'return', which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many sibling read tools or when not to call it. The only usage signal is the lived_only filter, which is about invocation rather than tool selection.

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