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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete response contents and the underlying endpoint (GET /v3/locations/{id}), which helps with diagnostics, but says nothing about unknown-id failure behavior or rate limits.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior and returned fields front-loaded before the endpoint reference.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields plus annotations covering safety is nearly sufficient. Only the not-found/error path is unaddressed.

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 is 100% and the single location_id parameter is documented as 'AgendaPro location id.' with a positive-integer constraint. The description adds nothing about the id's origin or format beyond the schema, so 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('One location by id') and enumerates the payload (address, coordinates, timezone, opening hours), which distinguishes it from agendapro_list_locations by cardinality. It stops short of explicitly naming the list sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single location when you already have an id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_locations or list_available_slots, nor any precondition guidance about needing a valid AgendaPro location id.

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