List Dawarich points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this returns 'raw tracked location points' and the date-range scope, but it does not disclose details like pagination behavior or response format beyond what the schema already implies.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 having 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context for basic use: it says what the tool returns and when to use it. The schema and annotations fill in parameter details, so the description is adequate, though it could mention large result pagination or anomaly flags.

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 100%, with each parameter already described (e.g., 'Optional start date, timestamp, or Unix timestamp'). The description only adds 'date range' context but does not clarify parameter usage beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'raw tracked location points' plus the scope 'for a date range'. It distinguishes this from siblings by highlighting that it returns raw points and referencing timeline and visits as alternatives, which is a strong purpose statement.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for today's activity when timeline or visits are empty', which provides a concrete when-to-use condition and implies when not to use (when timeline/visits have data). This is clear usage guidance with alternatives.

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