get_location_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Hydrate' implies a read-only, idempotent fetch of a full record, and 'production' signals real vs. test data — useful context. But failure modes for unknown/missing IDs, response shape, and absence of side effects are left unstated.

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?

A single 11-word sentence front-loads the verb and packs in matching precision ('exact'), data environment ('production'), and keying mechanism ('stable findtime id'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 single-required-param lookup with 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The notable gap is that with no output schema, it does not state what a 'location record' contains (e.g., offset, DST info, aliases) or error behavior for unknown IDs — moderate gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool answers a time question.

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 coverage is 100%: the id parameter includes a concrete format example ('findtime:victoria|CA|America/Vancouver') and _endUserId has a thorough privacy- and provenance-oriented description. The tool description adds only 'stable findtime id,' which reinforces but does not exceed the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Hydrate'), resource ('exact production location record'), and method ('by stable findtime id'), clearly stating an exact-ID lookup rather than a search. This distinguishes it from the closest sibling, search_timezones, which finds locations without a stable ID.

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 'by stable findtime id' phrase implies the caller must already possess a findtime ID, so context is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named (e.g., 'use search_timezones to find an ID first').

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