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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required location:read permission scope and the underlying HTTP route, plus the fact that the four include_* payloads are optional add-ons rather than defaults. It stops short of describing failure behavior for an unknown id.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and optional expansions stated first and the permission/endpoint constraints trailing as supporting detail. Every clause earns its 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 read-only fetch with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, optional payloads, auth scope and endpoint. The only meaningful omission is what happens for a nonexistent or unauthorized location id.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter carries its own description, including the discovery path for project_id and location_id and the default-false behavior of the include flags. The description's list of optional payloads mirrors the schema without adding format, cost, or interaction detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One location by id') plus the optional expansions it can return (hours, filters, custom fields, calls to action), and pins it down with the endpoint GET /projects/{project_id}/locations/{location_id}. This clearly separates it from the sibling list_locations.

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?

'One location by id' signals the single-resource case versus listing, and the required permission is named. It does not explicitly route the agent to storerocket_list_locations when the id is unknown (that hint only lives in the schema field description), so it falls short of naming alternatives explicitly.

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