location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: a per-call user consent gate and that the address is only present "when known" (conditional field availability). It does not say what happens on permission denial or location-unavailable, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the returned fields are front-loaded before the consent caveat. Nothing here could be cut without losing 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description does the essential work by listing return fields and the consent behavior. It still leaves the agent guessing about failure modes (permission denied, no fix), freshness/caching, and coordinate format or accuracy units.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description nonetheless clarifies what the response contains, which substitutes usefully for the absent parameter documentation.

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?

It names the specific resource (the phone's current location) and enumerates the returned fields — latitude, longitude, accuracy, address. No sibling tool overlaps with this, so the agent can distinguish it immediately. It reads slightly as an output description rather than a verb+resource action, which keeps it just under 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?

"Buddy asks the user first, every time" gives a clear precondition for invocation, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over adjacent tools such as device_status, nor any when-not guidance (e.g., cached location vs. fresh fix).

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