get_user_last_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what data is retrieved but doesn't mention whether this requires special permissions, if there are rate limits, what format the location data is in, or whether this accesses real-time vs historical data. For a tool accessing sensitive location/login information, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning - 'retrieve' (action), 'last known location and login information' (what), 'for a user' (target), 'from Okta system logs' (source). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 tool that retrieves sensitive location and login data with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return data looks like, whether it includes timestamps, geographic coordinates, IP addresses, or device information. Given the complexity of location/login data and absence of structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the returned information.

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 100% (the userId parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify format requirements, provide examples, or explain how to obtain the userId. The description simply reinforces that it retrieves data 'for a user' without parameter details.

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 ('retrieve') and resource ('last known location and login information for a user'), and specifies the source ('from Okta system logs'). It distinguishes from generic 'get_user' by focusing on location/login data rather than user profile information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other sibling tools that might access logs or user data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user' (for profile data) or other logging tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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