alga_clients_locations_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the result is not paginated, so the agent knows to expect the full set in one response. It stops short of covering error behavior (e.g., unknown client id) or result size concerns.

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 sentence with zero filler, and the key scoping fact (belongs to a client) is front-loaded ahead of the pagination caveat.

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, single-parameter read-only list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and pagination behavior. Only minor gaps remain, such as return shape hints or failure behavior for an unknown client.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description does a little work by indicating the id refers to a client. However, it doesn't state the accepted id format, whether the id is a client id versus a location id, or what happens with an invalid id, leaving the pattern/maxLength constraints in the schema to speak for themselves.

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 a specific verb and resource ("List all locations belonging to a client"), which is clearly distinct from siblings like alga_clients_get or alga_clients_contacts_list. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is narrow enough that an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this when it needs a client's locations, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any named alternative such as a paginated or search-based variant.

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