Get a location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that a map image URL and coordinates come back, which is modest output context rather than behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the contact-detail redaction default, though that is documented in the schema.

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?

A single compact sentence-fragment with no filler and the return payload front-loaded. It is terse to the point of omitting a verb, which slightly weakens readability, but nothing is wasted.

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 rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description's main remaining job is to convey what comes back, which it does by listing the four payload components. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, though it could say more about single-vs-list selection.

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% – both location_id (slug pattern) and include_contact_details (redaction toggle) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('One venue') and enumerates exactly what the call returns (address, additional info, coordinates, map image URL). The verb is only implied by the tool name, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling list_locations, so it stops short of a 5.

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 stated when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The phrase 'One venue' hints that this is the single-item counterpart to list_locations, but that routing decision 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.