where_is

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about read-only semantics, what happens when the item is unknown, whether matching is fuzzy or exact, or any permission/rate constraints — only that it returns a 'full story'.

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?

One compact sentence with the key qualifier ('one item') front-loaded and the returned fields enumerated. 'Full story' and 'picture hint' are slightly informal terms that cost a little precision, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and for a one-parameter lookup the scope statement is close to sufficient. What is missing is the accepted input format for 'item' and the failure behavior, which matter for a tool whose only argument is free text.

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 single required parameter 'item' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only says 'one item' without clarifying whether it takes a name, an id, or a fuzzy query, or how ambiguity is resolved. With schema coverage this low, the description should compensate and does not.

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 names a concrete retrieval scope — one item, returning exact spot, picture hint, and moves — which distinguishes it from list_by_room, list_kinds, and summary that operate over collections. It stops short of a clean verb phrase ("where_is" plus 'full story' is colloquial), but an agent can tell what it fetches.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over siblings. It shares 'moves' with move_history and single-item lookup with search, yet neither alternative nor a precondition (e.g. needing the item identifier from search first) is mentioned.

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