Get a NEON location

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive happy path. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond those annotations: names are case-sensitive, children are paged and pruned by location_type, and optional includes control parent chain, history, polygon, and children. It does not discuss error behavior, but the output schema covers the response shape.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and payload, while the second packs two useful usage details: case-sensitivity and the recommended follow-up sibling. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only annotations, a rich output schema, and a sibling list, the description is largely complete: it names the returned data, optional inclusions, pruning behavior, pagination concept, and a follow-up tool. The main gap is the lack of explicit semantics for the limit/offset/depth parameters, though their names and schema constraints make them reasonably inferable.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates partially by explaining the include semantics ('parent chain, location history, polygon and paged children') and the pruning role of location_type. However, three parameters—children_limit, children_offset, and hierarchy_max_depth—lack schema descriptions and are not mentioned in the tool description, leaving a real semantic gap despite self-explanatory names.

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 opens with 'One named location in depth' and enumerates the exact data returned: coordinates, UTM, elevation, orientation and offsets, properties, active periods. It also lists optional additions (parent chain, history, polygon, children), making the operation's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from listing-oriented siblings like neon_find_locations.

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?

It provides a concrete follow-up instruction: 'Next: call neon_find_locations to list locations of a type under it,' which implies this tool is for deep single-location retrieval while neon_find_locations handles children listing. The guidance is clear but implicit; there is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or comparison with other siblings like neon_get_site.

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