Locations Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra context beyond the annotations: the required OAuth scope read_locations, the underlying HTTP endpoint, and the API version, which helps the agent confirm access prerequisites.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the purpose followed by endpoint and scope metadata. No filler, though the HTTP path is mildly redundant with the tool name.

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 simple single-resource read with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies the missing operational details (scope, API version). No output schema exists, but returned fields can be shaped via the documented fields parameter, so the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 all three parameters (id, fields, response_format) are documented in the schema, including the enum for response_format. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

"Get one location" names a specific verb and resource, and the singular wording implicitly contrasts with the locations_list sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming the list tool as the alternative for enumerating locations.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single location by id. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance (e.g. use locations_list to discover ids first, or when to prefer inventory_levels_list for stock).

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