get_suggested_sublocations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it never says the call is read-only, what 'suggested' is based on (existing sublocations, capacity, defaults, usage history), or whether the result is exhaustive or a heuristic ranking. The key behavioral trait of this tool is the suggestion algorithm, and it is entirely unstated.

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 no filler, and the parenthetical gloss is the one piece of information that earns its place. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why behavior is under-described rather than a sign of disciplined economy.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, this is close to minimally viable. The unresolved meaning of 'suggested' and the absence of any read-only/side-effect signal leave the agent guessing about what the tool actually returns.

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% with a single required 'locationId' parameter, so the schema already documents the input and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail (e.g., where the location ID comes from) beyond what the schema provides.

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 suggested sublocations') and adds a clarifying gloss that sublocations are 'bins/shelves', which disambiguates unfamiliar domain vocabulary. It does not name or contrast against any sibling, but no sibling covers this resource, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no stated alternative. The reader must infer that this is called when picking a bin/shelf for a location, and nothing explains when a static list_locations-style call would be preferable.

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