my_location

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether the context is scoped to the authenticated user (despite the 'my_' prefix), or what happens when no location has been set yet.

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?

It is short with no filler, but it is a bare noun phrase rather than a front-loaded action statement. The colon-separated field list is compact and readable, yet the fragment structure makes it read like a schema annotation rather than a tool description.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, so the bar is low and it partly clears it. It still fails to resolve the read-vs-set ambiguity against set_location, which is the main thing an agent needs in order to choose correctly.

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 zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description also enumerates the values that make up the context (cooperative, warehouse, postcode), giving useful shape to an otherwise parameterless call.

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 names the resource ('shopping context used for catalogue calls') and its components (cooperative, warehouse, postcode), but contains no verb at all. An agent cannot tell from the text alone whether calling it reads the current context or mutates it; that inference depends on contrasting with the sibling set_location.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusion. The obvious alternative, set_location, appears in the sibling list but is never referenced, so an agent is left to infer that my_location is the read counterpart rather than the tool that establishes the context.

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