vt_get_locations

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world. The description adds valuable context: caching behavior ('Reference data — cached') and a batch limit of 500 references. This supplements the annotations well, though error handling or rate limits are not mentioned.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence explains the core purpose, and the second adds constraints. No redundant or superfluous information.

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?

Given the simple input (one parameter) and lack of output schema, the description mentions the output types (names, addresses, coordinates) and batch limit. This is mostly complete, but it omits what happens with invalid or missing references, which could be important for error handling.

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?

The single parameter 'location_refs' has a schema description that is fully covered (100%). The tool description adds meaning by specifying the format of references (e.g., 'LOC-...') and what they represent (meeting points, pickup points), which goes beyond the schema.

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 resolves location references to names, addresses, and coordinates, and specifies input types like 'LOC-...', meeting points, and pickup points. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which perform different tasks such as searching or getting availability.

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 implies usage for resolving references from product details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like vt_list_destinations. No when-not or exclusions are given, leaving some ambiguity.

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