crehq_location_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return payload in detail, including attributes and verification sources, which goes beyond the schema's minimal parameter info. It does not mention error handling or authorization, but for a simple single-record lookup, the output disclosure is substantive.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the core purpose and then provides concrete examples of the returned fields. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description adequately maps the expected return values (address, brand, status, attributes, sources). It does not cover edge cases, but these are less critical given the tool's narrow scope, and the return-value detail compensates for the missing output schema.

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 schema already documents the sole parameter 'id' with a clear description ('CREHQ location id'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description's 'by id' simply restates the schema and adds no extra format, type, or usage detail, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool 'Gets one location's full record by id' and enumerates the specific content (geocoded address, brand, lifecycle status, attributes, sources). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like crehq_locations_list, crehq_locations_search, and crehq_locations_nearby.

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?

The tool's usage context is clear: use when you have a specific location id and need the full record. However, it does not explicitly point to alternatives (e.g., crehq_locations_bulk for multiple records or crehq_locations_search for queries), so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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