vt_get_locations

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and completeness profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the data is cached, and the call accepts up to 500 references. It does not discuss invalid-reference behavior, but this is minor for a read-only lookup tool.

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 three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the batch limit and the caching caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with only two parameters, one required, and a read-only/open-world annotation profile, the description plus schema is complete. It covers what the tool resolves, what it returns, the input constraint, and the caching behavior. No output schema exists, but the description's 'names, addresses, and coordinates' plus the extensively documented `view` parameter are sufficient.

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%, and the schema already documents both `location_refs` and `view` in detail, including the maxItems cap and the compact/full distinction. The description adds a little semantic color — examples of reference types and the output fields — but it does not need to carry the parameter-documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Resolve,' and clearly identifies the resource ('Viator location references') and the output ('names, addresses, and coordinates'). It gives concrete examples ('LOC-...', meeting points, pickup points) that distinguish it from sibling search tools like vt_search_products or vt_list_destinations.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when an agent has Viator location reference IDs from product details. It also states the batch limit of 500 references per call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough that an agent can infer this is the dedicated reference-resolution tool.

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