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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, so the description only needs to add context. 'Last known' is a genuinely useful signal that the data may be stale or cached, but it says nothing about behavior when the agent is offline or how fresh the fix typically is.

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 compact fragments with zero filler and the key fact (last known coordinates) front-loaded. The endpoint path is arguably low-value for an agent but consumes little space.

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?

With one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but doesn't indicate what else comes back (timestamp, accuracy, agent status) or what happens for an agent with no location. Slightly under-specified for an output-schema-free 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 coverage is 100% and the single fleet_id parameter is fully documented, including its source (tookan_list_agents). The description adds no semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does 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?

The description names the specific resource (an agent's last known coordinates) and specifies latitude/longitude, which distinguishes it from the broader tookan_get_agent sibling. It lacks a verb phrase, but the resource and returned data are unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus tookan_get_agent, tookan_list_agents, or the team/fleet siblings. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the location-only lookup.

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