crehq_location_site_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the data is 'CREHQ-modeled from observed location/context data' and explicitly states it is not a brand-stated requirement sheet, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any operational aspects such as read-only nature, response format, or error handling, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a clarifying caveat. Every phrase contributes information—no filler or repetition. It is efficiently structured and easy to skim.

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?

Given the simple input schema (one parameter) and no output schema, the description provides a substantial list of return value categories (traffic/AADT, route class, demographics, etc.), which offers a good sense of what the tool returns. It is incomplete only in not describing the exact structure of the output, but for a profile retrieval tool it is reasonably complete.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter entity_id, which is described as 'CREHQ location entity_id.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies; it does not compensate with extra context about the parameter.

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 identifies the resource ('CREHQ Modeled Site Profile for one physical location') and the scope ('one physical location'), listing the types of data included. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets', making the action implicit. It does distinguish itself from siblings by emphasizing 'modeled' data and the 'not a brand-stated requirement sheet' caveat, which differentiates it from other site-related tools.

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 description implies usage for obtaining a modeled profile of a specific location, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like crehq_location_get or crehq_site_timeline. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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