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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, idempotent operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds some behavioral context by saying 'all visible' and outlining the returned data areas, but it does not disclose behavior such as pagination, limits, or how 'visible' is determined.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and uses lists to efficiently convey the return content.

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?

The one-parameter getter is simple, and the annotations cover the safety profile, so a short description is acceptable. However, the description omits useful context such as pagination or output structure, and the term 'visible' is left undefined, leaving some uncertainty about the full semantics of the call.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify the parameter, but it only refers to 'one subject' without naming subject_id or explaining its role beyond the obvious property name. It adds minimal value beyond the input schema.

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 ('Return') and identifies the exact resource: all visible location assertions for one subject. It also lists included content (provenance, conflict state, Place identity, migration drift), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_deliberation or resolve_location_assertion.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. An agent must infer that it is the query tool for location assertions rather than being told.

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