crehq_locations_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output composition (entity_uid, geocoded address, open/closed status, multi-source verification trace), explicitly lists excluded data categories, and mentions the 'bounded' behavior for free sandbox keys. This provides substantial behavioral transparency beyond structured fields.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating purpose. The remaining sentences add needed exclusions and usage context, though the final sentence is somewhat long. Each sentence contributes value, but the overall length could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description compensates by listing key output fields and exclusions. It also gives usage guidance for sandbox keys. However, given the large sibling tool set, it does not explicitly differentiate from other location-listing tools (search, nearby, get), making contextual completeness slightly less than optimal.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning filters (brand, state, category) but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already documents. It does not describe pagination, provenance behavior, or parameter formats in more detail.

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 lists individual store/branch/site records with explicit filters (brand, state, category), and distinguishes its output from premium tools by listing what it excludes. This provides a specific verb+resource+scope that is immediately comprehensible.

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 explicitly notes a use case ('Free sandbox keys can use this as a bounded brand lookup') and provides alternatives for excluded data ('use the relevant premium tool... otherwise call crehq_request_upgrade'). However, it does not contrast with sibling listing/search tools like crehq_locations_search or crehq_locations_nearby, leaving some usage ambiguity.

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