ta_get_locations

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it discloses that unknown or unlicensed ids are silently omitted, which is critical for interpreting sparse results. It also notes default vs. full response shapes, though the schema already details this. This is helpful behavior disclosure without contradicting annotations.

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 two compact sentences that front-load the core purpose and the key behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds value: purpose, cost comparison, silent omission, and view behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description does enough to set expectations for the response (slim summaries vs. full records) and covers the main edge case (silently omitted ids). Locale parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke, though a bit more detail on the response structure would push it to 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mostly echoes what the schema states (array of ids, full view option) rather than adding new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional semantics are introduced in the description.

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 gets details for multiple locations in one batch call, contrasting it with the single-location sibling ta_get_location_details. The verb 'Get' plus resource 'locations' and the MULTIPLE/batch qualifier leave no ambiguity about what this tool does and how it differs from its siblings.

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 explicitly positions the tool as the cheaper alternative to repeated ta_get_location_details calls, giving a clear 'when to use' condition. The note about unknown or unlicensed ids being silently omitted also helps the agent set expectations before invoking and advises against using this when missing ids matter.

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