hcm_get_location

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as return format or error behavior, but for a simple read-by-id tool the annotation covers the main safety profile.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-id tool.

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 simple read-only lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. However, it does not mention what the response contains or whether the location is a physical address, organizational unit, or other entity, which could matter for an agent deciding between this and hcm_find_locations.

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 description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter, locationId, whose meaning is self-evident from the tool name and description. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, but the parameter is simple enough that the baseline is acceptable.

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 'Get location by id' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (location) and identifies the key parameter (id). It is distinguishable from siblings like hcm_search_locations and hcm_find_locations, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcm_search_locations or hcm_find_locations. The context implies a direct lookup by ID, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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