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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral specifics beyond them: coordinates exist only while the task is active, sharing cuts off at proof submission/cancellation, only a single current point is stored, and no history is retained. This exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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?

The description is structured into two useful paragraphs: the first defines the sharing states, the second the privacy contract. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence contributes. Slightly verbose due to the detailed state enumeration, but justified for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the full sharing state machine and all relevant fields (lat, lng, accuracy_m, updated_at, age_seconds). It also includes staleness guidance and privacy constraints, making it self-sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 schema already describes task_id as an owned task with request_live_location and worker consent. The description adds context about the sharing state machine and privacy, but it doesn't introduce new meaning for the parameter itself beyond the schema's own description.

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 (get), resource (worker location), and prerequisite (owned task posted with request_live_location). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_worker, get_task_status, and get_task_proof by focusing on the live-location use case.

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?

Provides clear context: the tool is for owned tasks with request_live_location and worker consent. The staleness guidance (check age_seconds) and the privacy contract tell the agent how to interpret results. However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or states 'use X instead,' so it stops short of a 5.

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