netsuite_get_locations

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' and mentions optional parameters. It does not disclose output format, sorting behavior, pagination defaults, error handling, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, this is somewhat understandable, but the lack of any behavioral detail beyond the action leaves the agent guessing.

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 one concise sentence with a parenthetical clarifying context, followed by a brief parameter note. Every word earns its place; no filler or unnecessary detail. It is effectively front-loaded with the main action.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the shape of the return value or any notable behaviors. It neither explains what fields are returned nor confirms whether the output is a list of objects, IDs, or something else. The mention of limit/offset suggests pagination but not the response structure. This is an incomplete picture for an agent without additional context.

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 input schema has no properties, so the description provides valuable info about limit and offset parameters that are not present in the structured schema. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent actionable parameter semantics. However, it does not elaborate on constraints (e.g., max limit value, data types beyond 'number'), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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's action and resource: 'List NetSuite locations'. It also adds context that 'locations' is an 'analytical dimension for geographical or physical location tracking', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list vendors, accounts, etc. The verb 'List' is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you need to retrieve NetSuite locations, and the optional limit/offset parameters suggest pagination usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios. The guidance is minimal and largely inferred.

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