Get project location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no error behavior for an unknown ID, no statement about what a "location assignment" contains, and no scoping constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though it leans toward under-specification rather than true conciseness given the tool's many similarly named siblings.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It stops short of clarifying what constitutes a "project location assignment" or how it relates to project and location entities, which is the main ambiguity in this large sibling family.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a UUID format and pattern, so the schema fully documents it. The description's "by ID" merely restates what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline of 3 under high coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a single project location assignment by ID"), which is more precise than the raw tool name. However, it offers nothing to distinguish it from near-identical siblings such as get_project_site, get_project_building, or list_project_locations, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided at all. The description never mentions the alternative list_project_locations, nor when a caller should retrieve a single assignment rather than listing them, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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