get_location

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, yet 'Get details of a location' adds nothing beyond the read-only implication already in the name. It doesn't state behavior for unknown IDs, whether campaignId scopes access, or what the response contains. There is no annotation contradiction, but also no behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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?

A single five-word sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The structure is clean and scannable, though the brevity borders on under-specification — concision is achieved by omitting content rather than distilling it, which is why it doesn't earn a 5.

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 2 required parameters (one non-obvious: campaignId), zero schema parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, a five-word description is incomplete. The response format, the role of campaignId, and the difference from list_locations are all left to inference; the sibling list hints at a uniform CRUD pattern but the description never confirms it.

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 compensate, but it names neither parameter. The phrasing 'of a location' weakly implies id is the location identifier, which is already obvious from the tool name, while the required campaignId parameter remains completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether it is a scoping key, a tenant identifier, or an authorization token.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('location'), so the core action is clear and it can be distinguished from get_quest/get_character by resource name. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_locations or clarify what 'details' means versus list output; an agent must rely on the get_/list_ naming convention to infer single-entity retrieval.

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 get_location versus list_locations, search, or the adjacent get_X tools. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing conditions — the agent must infer the call context entirely from the sibling list and parameter names.

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