get_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It doesn't disclose behavior beyond the basic read operation, such as what fields are returned, whether the full address/phone are always present, error behavior for invalid IDs, or authentication/permission requirements. For a read tool the omission is a moderate gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the address/phone detail adding value without verbosity. Zero wasted words.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could benefit from noting what the response includes, but this is a low-complexity tool (1 param, no nested objects) so the gap is modest.

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 coverage is 100% — the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'The location ID' in the input schema. The description adds 'specific location' context but no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema's own description provides. Baseline 3 applies given full coverage.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Get a specific location by ID from IT Glue, including its full address and phone number.' It distinguishes from siblings like search_locations (which searches) and create_location/update_location. The mention of 'full address and phone number' adds retrieval scope specificity.

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?

Implied usage is to retrieve a single location by ID as opposed to searching. However, there's no explicit statement of when to choose this over search_locations, or any exclusions or prerequisites noted. Context is inferable but not explicit.

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