employees__get_active_courier_locations_by_terminal

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable operational detail beyond annotations: MCP-server throttling (10 requests/60s) and the recommendation to cache results in the conversation. This is relevant behavioral context that helps the agent plan calls correctly.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, ID-source mapping second, rate-limit and caching guidance last. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema data.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does not describe what the returned courier locations look like (coordinates, timestamps, courier IDs, etc.). It covers required inputs and rate limiting, but an agent still has to infer the return shape and the 'active' semantics from the tool name.

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?

Even though the schema includes descriptions for the nested IDs, schema_description_coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by mapping each required parameter to a concrete sibling MCP tool (organizations__get_organizations and terminal_groups__get_terminal_groups), which adds meaning beyond raw field names.

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 the resource ('courier locations') and the scope ('of the terminal'), which matches the tool name and distinguishes it from global variants like employees__get_active_courier_locations. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb statement, and it does not explicitly say 'active couriers', so it stops short of a fully self-contained purpose definition.

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 gives practical guidance on where to obtain organizationId and terminalGroupId, which helps an agent prepare required inputs. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over the similarly named employees__get_active_courier_locations or employees__get_courier_location_history, so the when-vs-alternatives guidance is only implied by the tool name.

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