hcm_search_locations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of pagination, return format, or how the LOV is structured. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to provide useful extra detail.

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 extremely brief (three words), but brevity here sacrifices clarity. It is not a model of conciseness because the single phrase does not carry enough meaning to earn its place—it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many similar siblings, the description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot determine the tool's purpose, parameters, expected results, or when to choose it, leaving a severe gap in operational understanding.

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%, so the description must explain parameters, but it mentions none. The four parameters (q, limit, finder, offset) are entirely undocumented, and the description offers no hints about their semantics or how they interact, making it impossible to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 'Search locations LOV' states a verb and resource, but 'LOV' (List of Values) is unexplained jargon, and the tool is not differentiated from siblings like hcm_find_locations or hcm_get_location. It is nearly a restatement of the name and lacks the specificity needed to understand what makes this search unique.

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. With many location-related siblings (hcm_find_locations, hcm_get_location, hcm_lov_finder), the description provides no context for when this search is appropriate, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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