get_available_trends_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's name and offers no additional information about output format, data source, pagination, or any quirks. Since this is a read-only lookup, the lack of detail is concerning but not misleading.

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, short sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy. It is an ideal length for a tool with no parameters.

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 tool with no parameters, the description is minimally viable, but it is incomplete because there is no output schema and no explanation of what 'locations' means or how the return data will be structured. Users are left to guess whether the result is a list of WOEIDs, names, or objects.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The schema is empty and there is nothing to explain. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not attempt to.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource ('Get Available Trends Locations'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling tool get_trends_by_location, which could be confused for a similar operation. The name and description are nearly identical.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of related tools like get_trends_by_location, and no context suggesting that this tool should be called first to obtain location IDs. The description simply states the function without any usage direction.

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