Get project location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is the return payload structure and units (degrees, meters, IFC CRS), which is genuinely useful but is more output content than additional behavioral trait disclosure.

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?

It is a single long run-on enumeration, which is less scannable than a bulleted list would be, but every token encodes return-field meaning and there is no filler. The purpose is front-loaded before the field enumeration.

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 carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so comprehensively: coordinates, units, north-direction convention, sun data, surveyPoint sub-fields, geoReference, and the editable flag are all enumerated. An agent can consume the result without guesswork.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the return payload rather than inventing parameter semantics. Nothing is missing on the input side.

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+resource ("Returns the project location") and enumerates the exact data returned, so an agent knows precisely what it produces. It clearly contrasts in intent with the sibling set_geo_location (read vs write), though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The read-only getter nature implies it's for inspection, and the sibling set_geo_location is the obvious mutating counterpart, but the description never states the routing condition or any prerequisite. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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