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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the behaviors that matter for this lookup: case-insensitive substring matching, literal handling of spaces and wildcard characters, empty/omitted filter returning everything, and an empty array when nothing matches. It stops short of stating the read-only nature explicitly or describing the returned location record's fields.

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 front-loaded first line states the resource, and the filter semantics follow in a tight block with no wasted clauses. The opening 'Get DTMO OCONUS locations' heading slightly duplicates the title-less name, but overall it is well-sized for a two-parameter lookup.

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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool with no annotations, the description covers inputs well, but with no output schema it never says what a returned location record looks like (name, code, ID?), which an agent needs to chain into follow-up calls. That is the one remaining gap.

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% and the schema already documents the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, the 'ZZ' special case, and the get_countries resolution path, so the description only restates the country code. It does add real meaning for `location` beyond the schema's bare 'Filter by location name' — case-insensitive, literal substring with wildcards treated as literal — which lifts it slightly but the redundant country-code sentence caps it at baseline.

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+resource pair ('Return DTMO locations') and scopes it to a single country via ISO code, so an agent can tell what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very close sibling get_dtmo_conus_locations or clarify its relationship to get_dtmo_perdiem_oconus, leaving the CONUS/OCONUS split to be inferred from the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for a specific country' tells you the required scope, and the filter paragraph tells you when to pass `location` versus omit it. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_dtmo_conus_locations, get_dssr_locations_by_country, or the per-diem lookup siblings, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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