gbp_get_location

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read operation ('Gets'), but it does not say what 'detailed information' actually includes, whether authentication is required, what happens for invalid names, or what the response shape looks like.

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 a single short sentence with no redundant phrases or unnecessary details. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter retrieval tool and is easy to parse quickly.

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?

Although the parameter is well documented, there is no output schema and the description does not define what 'detailed information' returns. An agent would not know which location fields to expect or whether the tool is suitable for a specific data need. Low complexity helps, but the missing return-value description is a real gap.

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 fully documents the only parameter `name` including its required format. The description adds only the word 'specific' and does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 clearly states the operation ('Gets detailed information') and the resource ('a specific GBP location'), and the word 'specific' helps distinguish it from listing tools like gbp_list_locations. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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 context is only implied: the tool is for retrieving one specific GBP location rather than listing many. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over gbp_list_locations or other location-related siblings, and no exclusion criteria.

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