saas_api_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the specific authentication requirement (agency-level token) and clarifies that a location PIT is not acceptable. This goes beyond the annotations and is valuable for an agent to avoid incorrect usage.

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 concise sentence, which is appropriately brief. However, it omits critical details about parameters and the return value, making it under-specified. While it is not verbose, the lack of necessary information reduces its effectiveness.

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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of customerId and subscriptionId, does not clarify what locations are returned, and does not distinguish this tool from similar saas_api tools like saas_api_get_saas_locations. An agent would have insufficient guidance to call this tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only mentions 'stripeId' and 'companyId'. The schema actually requires customerId, subscriptionId, and companyId, and 'stripeId' does not appear in the schema. This is misleading and fails to clarify what customerId and subscriptionId represent. The description adds no meaningful semantic for two of the three required parameters.

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 'Get locations by stripeId with companyId', which clearly indicates a retrieval operation for locations with specific identifiers. It is specific about the resource (locations) and the operation (get). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool saas_api_get_saas_locations, and the mention of 'stripeId' is ambiguous because the schema uses customerId and subscriptionId instead.

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 the authentication prerequisite: 'requires an agency-level token, not a location PIT'. This gives a clear condition for when the tool can be used and implicitly warns against using it without the proper token. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool relative to other saas_api tools, nor does it reference any alternatives.

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