crehq_locations_bulk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only bulk fetch, but it does not mention pagination behavior, the requirement to supply at least one filter (since the schema has no required parameters), or the response format. This is a moderate gap given the lack of annotations.

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 ('Bulk location retrieval'), and wastes no words. It efficiently covers what, how, and when without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations) and the large sibling set, the description does a solid job of explaining the use case and differentiation. However, it leaves out that no parameters are required (schema shows required: []), which could confuse an agent about whether a call with zero filters is valid, and it does not mention pagination despite the per_page parameter. These omissions are partially mitigated by the schema but still represent incompleteness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the three filter modes and adds an example for 'polygon' (custom market boundary), but it does not add significant semantics beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or constraints on combination.

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's primary function: bulk location retrieval for ETL/pipeline use. It specifies multiple input methods (ids, brands, GeoJSON polygon) and explicitly distinguishes itself from single-location tools by advising against looping, making it easy for an agent to select this over siblings.

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 gives explicit usage context: ETL/pipeline, hydrating a dataset, and when not to use it (looping single-location calls). It does not name the alternative sibling tool directly, but the guidance is clear enough that an agent would infer crehq_location_get is the single-location alternative.

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