List client locations for one id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context by noting the endpoint was inferred from SingleOps web traffic and that results should be confirmed, and it lists the JSON response keys despite there being no output schema.

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 purpose, endpoint, and provenance caveat are front-loaded, which is good. However, the long enumeration of query parameters largely duplicates the input schema and makes the description less concise without adding explanatory value.

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 read-only endpoint wrapper with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, provenance caveat, query-parameter list, and return-key list. It is largely complete for invocation, though it could better explain how the optional DataTables parameters affect results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 30 parameters. The description repeats the observed query-parameter names and return keys but does not explain the meaning of DataTables parameters like draw, start, length, or columns[...], so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'List client locations for one id.' The scope is specific enough to distinguish it from broader client searches, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate it from nearby siblings such as list_client_location_stats.

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?

It states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like list_client_location_stats, search_clients, or other client list tools. The only implied usage comes from the tool name and the required id parameter.

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