get_preferred_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a dictionary with location information, which is helpful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, mention error conditions (e.g., if no location is set), or describe the dictionary's structure. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second sentence explains the return value. There's no unnecessary information, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. Minor deduction for the slightly verbose 'Returns:' label instead of integrating it more seamlessly.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the return type, but without annotations, it should ideally mention authentication needs or error handling. It's minimally viable but could be more complete for safe agent use.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it naturally meets expectations. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy while focusing on the tool's function.

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: 'Get the currently set preferred store location.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('preferred store location'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_location_details' or 'search_locations', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), compare it to sibling tools like 'get_location_details' or 'set_preferred_location', or specify use cases. This leaves the agent without contextual direction for tool selection.

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