List Warehouse Locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral details: pagination semantics, response_format options, and the returned fields (UUID, code, zone/group, warehouse). These details go beyond annotations and help the agent understand runtime behavior.

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 compact and well-structured. It uses a clear 'Args:' block and a 'Returns:' line, making it easy to scan. Every sentence contributes meaningful information—purpose, parameters, and return value—without padding or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately covers return values, listing the specific fields (identifier, code, zone/group, warehouse). It also covers pagination and output format controls. For a simple list operation with optional parameters, this is fully complete and actionable for an agent.

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 three parameters with defaults and ranges. The description's Args section largely duplicates this information. It adds a remote link to the tool's purpose ('resolve location codes') but no substantive parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'List warehouse locations (bins/shelves), paginated.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like logiwa_list_warehouses, which lists warehouses (facilities), not individual locations. The verb 'List' and resource 'warehouse locations' are specific and 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?

The description provides clear context by noting the tool is 'used to resolve location codes for inventory transfers and receiving.' This gives the agent a concrete scenario for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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