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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only" largely repeats structured data. The one piece of added context is "in the selected account" (account scoping), but nothing is said about not-found behavior or error responses.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler. The second sentence is partially redundant with annotations but cheap enough to justify itself.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this is minimally sufficient. Gaps remain around account selection semantics and what happens when the ID is invalid or absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. "by ID" only confirms that the lone parameter is an identifier; the '^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9_-]{0,79}$' pattern constraint and the format of valid IDs go entirely unaddressed.

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?

"One location by ID" states the resource (location), the retrieval key (id), and implicitly the singular-fetch behavior, which distinguishes it from the sibling smartplan_list_locations. It is clear but lacks an explicit verb and does not name the list sibling.

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: fetching a single location when an ID is known, versus listing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool is named, even though smartplan_list_locations is an obvious fork point.

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