locations_get_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small but useful clarification that 'Sub-Account' was formerly called 'Location', which aids understanding of domain terminology. No additional behavioral traits (like return format or pagination) are disclosed, but for a simple get operation this is acceptable given the annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase that conveys the essential purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words. While it is minimal, it is not under-specified for a simple retrieval operation.

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 tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations that cover safety and idempotency, the description is reasonably complete. However, it does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., the full location object), which could be helpful given there is no output schema. The openWorldHint annotation hints that results may be incomplete, but the description does not explain this.

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?

The schema fully describes the single optional parameter locationId with a description and default behavior ('Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb 'Get' and a resource 'Sub-Account (Formerly Location)' which unambiguously identifies the operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like locations_search_locations or locations_put_location, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose between this and other location-related tools such as locations_search_locations or locations_get_location_tags.

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