Get Dawarich track detail

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields and noting that sampled points are optional. It does not overreach beyond the read-only nature, making it transparent about the tool's output without conflicting with 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Returns a compact detail for one Dawarich journey') and then lists the key content. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's functionality, with no redundant phrases or 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the return value by naming the fields. It covers the main semantics (compact detail, optional sampled points) but does not mention error behavior or the relationship to sibling tools. However, the annotations and schema fill in some gaps, making this reasonably 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions 'optional sampled points' which aligns with include_points. It does not elaborate on max_points default behavior beyond what the schema states, so the value added is limited.

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 what the tool does: 'Returns a compact detail for one Dawarich journey' and lists the specific contents ('start/end points, endpoint labels, bounding box, duration, and optional sampled points'). This distinguishes it from the sibling dawarich_get_track_points by emphasizing 'compact detail' and 'sampled points', implying a summary rather than the full point list.

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 implies usage for obtaining a summary of a single track, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like dawarich_get_track_points or dawarich_get_timeline. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the description.

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