saas_api_get_saas_locations_deprecated

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the authentication constraint (agency-level token vs location PIT), which is a behavioral trait not covered by the schema or annotations. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, return format, or other potential side effects. It adds moderate value beyond the structured metadata.

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 succinct sentence that states the purpose and an important constraint upfront. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and immediately communicates the core operation and a critical prerequisite.

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 deprecated tool, the description omits guidance to use the non-deprecated alternative (saas_api_get_saas_locations). While the name clearly indicates deprecation, a complete description would explicitly advise against new usage or point to the replacement. It also does not clarify what 'SaaS Locations' returns beyond the name, though the schema covers parameters. It is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (page and companyId) with descriptions already present. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or nuance about these parameters. Since the schema fully documents them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra clarity is contributed.

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 action and resource: 'Get SaaS Locations'. It is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'saas_api_get_saas_locations' (non-deprecated), relying on the name to convey that it is the deprecated version. A clear purpose, but missing sibling differentiation.

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 mentions a prerequisite (requires an agency-level token, not a location PIT) but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like saas_api_get_saas_locations or saas_api_locations. It doesn't advise preferring the non-deprecated version or explain trade-offs. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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