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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true; the description goes further by enumerating the returned payload (descriptive fields, reference images, prompt_prefix_en) and tying the preview flag to quota cost. It does not mention pagination or failure modes, but for a single-resource read the added return-format context is meaningful.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and payload, then the usage rationale. No filler or restated name/title.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the key returned artifacts, and the read-only safety profile is covered by annotations. What's missing is only marginal detail (e.g., what happens on an invalid id), which is low-stakes for a single getter.

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%, so both loc_id and preview are already fully documented, including the 512px downscale and quota rationale. The description adds no parameter syntax beyond what the schema states, 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 location board in full'), and lists what comes back (descriptive fields, reference images, prompt_prefix_en). The emphasized 'ONE' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling lab_list_locations, which enumerates boards.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use it: 'to check what a board actually anchors before generating with it.' The schema also points at lab_list_locations for id discovery. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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