get_trajectory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context: it queries from location_data table, returns totalCount and pointCount, and explains limit behavior. This goes beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with an emoji header, a clear parameter list with formats, return structure, and a practical tip. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Although no output schema, the description explains return fields (totalCount, pointCount, trajectory points) and includes a pagination hint. This is sufficient for a query tool with moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description reinforces parameter meanings, adds format examples for time strings, and notes limit max 5000. This provides marginal additional value.

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 '查询标签的历史位置轨迹' (query tag's historical location trajectory), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_tag_location (likely current location) and list_tags (list all tags).

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 includes a tip about using COUNT before LIMIT and advises to narrow time range or increase limit if totalCount exceeds limit. This provides practical guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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