oauth_get_installed_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral constraint not in annotations: the requirement of an agency-level token (vs. a location PIT). This is useful context that affects call success and aligns with the read-only nature. It does not contradict annotations and adds value beyond the structured fields.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose and the key constraint without fluff. It front-loads the action and then the token requirement, with no wasted words. Perfectly sized for the information it conveys.

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?

While the description is adequate for a read-only get tool with a detailed schema, it lacks information about the return type or structure. The presence of skip/limit parameters suggests pagination and multiple locations, but the singular 'Location' in the name creates ambiguity. With no output schema, the agent cannot infer the response format. The description also doesn't mention whether the result is a single object or a list, which could affect how the agent uses the tool. The token constraint is stated, but response semantics are left unexplained.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description itself does not add meaning to parameters, which is acceptable given the high coverage. It implicitly references the token requirement but does not explain any parameter syntax or relationships. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and the resource ('Location where app is installed'), and adds a specific usage constraint (requires an agency-level token, not a location PIT). This goes beyond a generic statement and clearly distinguishes it from other tools in the sibling list, which focus on other aspects (e.g., saas plans, ad management). The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 gives a prerequisite (token type) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions that would point to another tool or exclusions. The token requirement provides context, but no explicit 'use this when...' guidance is offered, leaving some inference to the agent.

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