fetchAvailableLocales

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be (e.g., list of strings), error conditions, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'locales' are, how results are returned, or provide any operational context, making it inadequate for a tool with undocumented inputs and unknown outputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It mentions 'site' and 'language master' contextually but doesn't explain what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or examples. This leaves both parameters undocumented beyond their 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('available locales'), specifying the context ('for a site and language master'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'fetchLanguageMasters' or 'fetchSites' by focusing on locales, but could be more explicit about what 'locales' entails (e.g., language/country codes).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid site or language master), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'fetchLanguageMasters', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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