get_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool is free (0 credits), which is a behavioral cost detail. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a cost note. Every word earns its place, with no waste or redundancy.

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?

The tool has one parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description sufficiently conveys purpose, cost, and usage context, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the platform parameter with its own description. The tool description adds context about 'discovery filters' but does not explain parameter values or format beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('location codes'), and scope ('for a specific platform's discovery filters'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_languages and get_brands by specifying 'location codes'.

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 clear context: this tool is for fetching location codes to be used in discovery filters for a specific platform. It implicitly tells the agent when to use it (when location codes are needed for filters), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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