Show Location (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it confirms read-only semantics, describes the return value as a single JSON object, states that failures return error payloads with HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and notes that the id must resolve to an existing record. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect when invoking the tool.

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 longer than minimal but every sentence carries useful information: purpose, deprecation, usage condition, prerequisite, return format, read-only nature, error codes, and API endpoint. Minor redundancy exists with 'Required parameters: id, project_id' since the schema already declares them, but the overall structure is well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool's complexity (deprecated, requires two parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use and avoid it, the prerequisite for id, the return format, read-only semantics, and common error scenarios. The API reference and endpoint information add further context. There are no significant gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first', which is not in the schema. It also explicitly lists the required parameters, though this is redundant with the schema. This modest addition justifies a 4.

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 identifies the tool as showing details for a specified Location with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from list tools by stating 'Use this when you already know which location you want and need its full field set.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'show_project_location', which could cause confusion about which one to use for a given location.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it declares deprecation and advises preferring a newer version, directing the agent to use 'procore_search_endpoints' to find it. It also specifies when to use the tool ('when you already know which location you want') and gives a prerequisite ('id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first'), along with expected error scenarios. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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