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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key nuance: it returns the simulated value when ios_set_location is active, and otherwise the real CoreLocation fix. This goes beyond the name and is valuable, though it does not mention permissions, error conditions, or return format.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary action and then adding the crucial behavioral nuance. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant information.

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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the most important behavioral variation. It omits details like return format or permission requirements, but these are less critical given the simplicity and the explicit simulated/real distinction.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (udid) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about udid beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool reads the iOS device's current GPS location, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ios_set_location (a write operation) and device_get_location (generic device location) by specifying iOS and the simulated/real distinction.

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 provides behavioral context about when it returns simulated vs. real location and notes that no automation session is needed to read it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this over device_get_location or other location-read tools, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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