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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description's burden is reduced. It usefully adds the returned payload shape (address, contacts, status) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about behavior for a missing/invalid id, permission requirements, or whether archived locations are returned.

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, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the API detail. Nothing here is redundant with the schema beyond the word 'id'.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is essentially sufficient: the agent knows the input, the entity, and roughly what fields return even without an output schema. Only error/empty-case behavior is left unstated, which is minor at this complexity.

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?

There is a single parameter, fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with type, minimum, and description. The description adds no meaning beyond 'by id' — no format hints, no cross-entity scope notes. Baseline 3 is right where the schema does all the work.

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 customer location by id', and enumerates what comes back (address, contacts, status). The word 'one' plus 'by id' distinguishes it from the sibling list_locations without naming it explicitly, so the reader still has to infer the contrast.

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?

Retrieval of a single record by id is implied, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of servicetrade_list_locations as the alternative for enumerating locations. The agent can infer the split, but must do the work.

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