saas_api_get_location_subscription

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds a crucial behavioral detail: it requires an agency-level token and explicitly warns against using a location PIT. This is valuable context about authentication that the schema/annotations do not cover. It does not contradict any 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?

A single, highly focused sentence. The core purpose and a critical auth requirement are front-loaded. No filler words or redundant information. Ideal conciseness.

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 simple read operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral requirement (auth token type). Combined with annotations and the partial schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. It does not describe return format, but that's not critical for a straightforward get-details 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 exactly 50% (locationId has a description, companyId does not). The description adds no parameter-level detail whatsoever. It does not explain what companyId refers to or how to provide locationId beyond what the schema already states. With partial coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 resource ('Location Subscription Details'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also includes an important auth caveat. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like saas_api_get_saas_plan or saas_api_get_saas_locations, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a clear prerequisite (agency-level token, not location PIT) which helps the agent understand when this token type is required. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many saas_api siblings, nor any exclusions. The context is useful but not full routing guidance.

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