Get person location

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds real context beyond that: the automatic 'person.' prefix mutation and the error shape for a missing entity. It does not cover the case where the entity exists but has no location attributes, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded and cleanly sectioned with Use when / Returns / Errors, so an agent can scan the relevant part. There is mild redundancy: 'reads its state and location attributes' overlaps with the Returns list, and the title restates the opening line.

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?

Annotations carry safety, an output schema exists, and the description still supplies routing, the returned fields, and the error contract — more than enough for a one-parameter read tool. Only edge behavior (person present without GPS coordinates) is unaddressed.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The schema already documents the bare-id prefixing behavior, so the description's mention of it is reinforcement rather than added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one person entity's current location') and names the sibling tool it is distinct from ('rather than scanning a zone with zones_list_persons_in_zone'). An agent can separate it from zones_list_persons_in_zone and entities_get_entity without opening any schema.

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?

Uses an explicit 'Use when' clause and names the alternative operation plus the condition ('need just one person's coordinates rather than scanning a zone'). Routing between this and zone-scanning is unambiguous.

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