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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotated fact: a LocalSchema Pro API key must be supplied in the request headers, an auth prerequisite no structured field conveys. It stops short of noting rate limits or whether unpublished data can be absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource and its payload, followed by the auth requirement. The return-value enumeration is a dense comma list but every element maps to real retrieved data, so little is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the four payload components. The auth prerequisite is also supplied. Only minor ambiguity remains about what 'embed details' and 'validation issues' actually contain.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that the id comes from list_locations. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond noting the returned business fields share the same shape save_location accepts, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one saved location') and pins the scope to a single record, which implicitly distinguishes it from list_locations. The description also enumerates exactly what is retrieved (business fields, current/published JSON-LD, validation issues, embeds), so an agent knows precisely what it gets.

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 singular 'one saved location' plus the schema note that location_id comes from list_locations implies the list-then-fetch flow, but the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over list_locations or the validate_* / get_embed_snippet siblings. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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