Get location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note about permissions, error behavior on missing IDs, or the returned shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is wasted, though its brevity also reflects the thin content noted elsewhere.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the operation is a simple entity fetch. Still, the definition omits any linkage to glpi_list_locations and any hint about fields/format selection, leaving minor gaps for such a trivial tool.

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 100%, documenting locationId, the fields enum, and the format enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a location') scoped by ID, which implicitly separates it from glpi_list_locations. However, it never names the list sibling or otherwise differentiates explicitly, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative glpi_list_locations. The agent must infer that this is the single-item fetch versus the list tool.

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