Locations List

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the required OAuth scope, the pinned API version, and the pagination envelope (count/page/per_page/has_more/next_page). It stops short of noting rate limits or the page*per_page cap that governs paging behavior.

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 with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the endpoint, scope, version and return shape follow in a predictable order. Every line carries information an agent can act on.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the response envelope keys including the optional total/next_page and the has_more flag. Combined with the auth scope and API version, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so page, per_page, fields and response_format are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, leaving the schema to carry all of it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List locations") and clarifies the domain concept with "(branches / distribution centers)", which helps an agent map the term. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from tiendanube_locations_get or tiendanube_locations_inventory_levels_list, so it falls 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?

Usage is implied by the verb "List" and the scope note "read_locations" acts as a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as locations_get for a single branch. An agent must infer the choice from naming conventions alone.

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