Get Locations with Search Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds nothing beyond 'Returns locations' and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, error handling, or what happens with invalid options. With annotations present, the bar is lower but the description still fails to add meaningful context.

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 very short and to the point, consisting of a single line and a parameter list. While it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points), it is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary 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 tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify the return format, any limitations, or how the 'options' object is processed. It leaves questions like valid option keys unanswered, but for a simple read tool, it is functional.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds minimal value, essentially mirroring the schema with a slight expansion for 'options' listing country and state. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate meaning.

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 that the tool returns locations with search options/filters. It distinguishes itself from other location tools through the 'options' parameter for flexible filtering, but does not explicitly mention how it differs from siblings like 'machship_search_locations' or 'machship_get_locations_exact'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative location-fetching tools. The description lacks any context about ideal use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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