list_location_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'live status' adds real-time context. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, fetch_all override behavior) are disclosed, which leaves some ambiguity.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose followed by parameter explanations in a clear list. No unnecessary words, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers core functionality. It misses clarifying fetch_all's interaction with limit/offset, but overall is sufficient for a filtered-list tool with good structured metadata.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining name_contains as a case-insensitive substring match and grouping limit/offset/fetch_all as pagination controls. However, it does not detail fetch_all's behavior (e.g., ignoring limit/offset), leaving a semantic gap.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'live status for system locations', with a specific verb ('List') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_location_status (single location) and list_locations (locations without status).

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_location_status is for a single location or that list_locations lists locations without status. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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