users_get_user_by_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. However, the description adds zero behavioral context—it does not mention what is returned, whether any side effects exist, or any edge cases. With no added context, the description contributes nothing beyond the annotations, so it fails to disclose anything not already implied by 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 exactly one sentence, which is concise in word count, but it does not earn its place because it merely restates the tool name. It has no front-loaded information of value; the sentence is entirely redundant. True conciseness removes fluff while preserving meaning, but here the meaning is not enriched, so it is under-specification rather than effective brevity.

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 no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description should at least clarify what the tool returns and what 'by location' implies. It does neither, leaving the agent unaware of the return shape or any nuance about location-based lookup. While the schema covers the parameter, the description's lack of return info makes the overall definition incomplete for an agent that needs to understand the tool's contract.

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 single parameter locationId is fully described in the schema with 'Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information; it only repeats the tool name. Since the schema is complete, the description does not need to compensate, and a score of 3 reflects that the schema carries the burden and the description offers no extra value.

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 is a verbatim tautology of the tool name and title: 'Get User by Location'. It provides no elaboration on what constitutes a 'user' in this context, what a 'location' refers to, or how this differs from sibling tools like users_get_user or users_search_users. Restating the name is the definition of a tautology, so the purpose is not clarified beyond the identifier itself.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., users_get_user by ID, users_filter_users_by_email), nor any conditions that would make this the preferred choice. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with no decision support.

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