Get Dawarich track points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral detail ('ordered by timestamp ascending') and clarifies output content, but it does not disclose potential pagination, limits, or error behavior, which would be beneficial for a tool returning potentially many points.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler phrases.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects) and the presence of readOnly/destructive annotations, the description adequately communicates the core behavior and return content. It could mention pagination or output format, but for a primitive data-retrieval tool, the provided details are sufficient.

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 has full coverage of the single parameter (track_id) with a clear description ('Dawarick track ID'). The description only refers to 'a specific track' without adding syntax, format, or additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies a clear resource ('location points for a specific Dawarick track'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like dawarich_list_points or dawarich_get_track_detail, but the narrow scope ('for a specific track') provides adequate differentiation.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool (when you need location points for a specific track), but it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools for comparison, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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