locations_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes location details and its stored items, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. It does not mention authentication, error behavior, or how items are represented, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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?

One sentence states the action, the target resource, and a key return component with no redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the important detail about items is included without extra fluff.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description gives the essential information: what it returns and the scope of the request. It lacks details on error cases or permissions, but those are minor for a tool of this simplicity.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter ('id' with description 'Homebox location UUID'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single location'), and the phrase 'single' distinguishes it from location-list tools. The added note about including items stored in the location clarifies scope. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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 a caller needs details for one location, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus siblings like items_get or locations_list. There are no prerequisites or alternative routing clues, so the guidance is effectively absent.

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