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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them usefully by disclosing the field-scope restriction: metadata/approved fields only, no secrets, contacts or original files, which tells the agent what will be absent from the result.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the data-scope caveat. "Through the existing application" is filler that could be dropped, but overall there is little waste.

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 four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description omits how pagination and the query filter behave and what the record's identity parameter is. It covers result scope but leaves the agent under-informed about invocation, especially the paging semantics implied by limit/offset.

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 0% and the description adds nothing about the four parameters. It never mentions that targetId is a required location UUID, nor that limit, offset and query provide pagination and filtering, so the agent must infer all of this from types and defaults alone.

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 ("Read authorised location record"), so an agent can tell this fetches a single location record rather than a list. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as get_location_compliance_summary or list_locations, leaving the agent to infer that this is the raw record read.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of list_locations or the various get_location_* analytics tools, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g. needing a location UUID). The phrase "through the existing application" adds no routing information.

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