get_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Get') and suggests that 'available' is a key qualifier, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral context such as whether the result list is paginated, whether it includes both pickup and drop in a single list, or any potential limitations. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and filtering capability. However, since there is no output schema, the description could slightly elaborate on what the returned locations look like (e.g., names, codes), but the current wording is sufficient for basic use.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description and enum for 'location_type', so the description's mention of 'filter by location type' adds minimal value beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'all available pickup/drop locations,' making the tool's function unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on drivers, bookings, and fares, none of which relate to location listing.

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 clearly states the primary use case: retrieving pickup/drop locations, and mentions the optional location_type filter. Since no sibling tools overlap functionally, there is no need for explicit alternatives or exclusions. The 'optionally' phrasing conveys that filtering is not required.

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