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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so "without changing records" largely restates structured data. The one genuine addition is "without spending credits" — a cost disclosure an agent cannot get from annotations and that matters for call budgeting. It still says nothing about what happens on an unknown ID or the shape of the returned location.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but "Get location." followed immediately by "Retrieve a specific location by its ID." is a redundant restatement that could be collapsed. The remaining sentences are efficient and earn their place.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup with no output schema, this covers what an agent needs: what it fetches, that it is identified by ID, and that it costs nothing and mutates nothing. Depth beyond this is optional for such a simple tool.

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 registers as 0% at the top level, but the nested locationId property does carry both a description and an example (loc_county_48201 / loc_city_7333). The prose adds only "by its ID" — no format rules, prefix semantics, or whether city/county/state IDs are all valid. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema itself handles most of the load.

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 ("Retrieve a specific location by its ID"), which is unambiguous about what comes back. It does not name the obvious sibling dealmachine_location_search, so an agent must infer that the search tool is the way to discover an ID rather than inventing one.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase "by its ID" weakly implies a lookup-once-you-have-an-ID pattern (with dealmachine_location_search as the discovery path), but that inference is left entirely to the agent.

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