saas_api_locations_deprecated

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the authentication context (agency-level token) and clarifies that a location PIT is inappropriate. This extends beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 sentence that communicates the essential purpose and hard requirement. No unnecessary words or repetition; the description is optimally concise.

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 read-only tool with robust annotations and schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits a pointer to the non-deprecated replacement (e.g., saas_api_locations), which would be valuable given the 'deprecated' name. It also does not address how the optional stripe parameters interact or the response format, though the latter is absent from the schema.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description's phrase 'by stripeId' is ambiguous because the schema includes both customerId and subscriptionId as Stripe-related IDs; it does not clarify which specific parameter is meant. It also restates companyId without adding meaning, so it fails to enhance parameter understanding and may introduce confusion.

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 ('Get locations') and the criteria ('by stripeId with companyId'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the non-deprecated sibling saas_api_locations or other saas tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 an important usage constraint ('requires an agency-level token, not a location PIT'), which helps the agent decide when authentication is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like the non-deprecated saas_api_locations, nor does it state when to prefer this deprecated variant.

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