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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already indicates that the tool is read-only and has no destructive side effects. The description does not add additional behavioral context such as response format, error handling, or authentication requirements. Since the annotation covers the primary safety aspect, the lack of extra detail is acceptable.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 getter tool, the description and schema provide sufficient context: the action, the resource, and the parameter. It does not describe the return type or potential errors, but given the low complexity and the presence of the required parameter, it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema provides a description for the only parameter 'location_id' ('Location id.'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any further semantic detail about the parameter, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the full schema 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 specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'location record', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It stands out among sibling get_* tools because the resource type is explicitly named, though it does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_project_locations (which lists locations) or other single-getter tools. An agent would have to infer from the parameter and siblings, but no explicit direction is given.

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