get_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search functionality and return details, but lacks critical information such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior. For a search tool with multiple parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two efficient sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or error handling, and lacks details on the return format beyond high-level categories. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions search criteria (city, airport, coordinates) and return details, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context like default behaviors beyond the schema's 'radius_miles' description. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches for Hertz rental locations near specified criteria and returns location details. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'Hertz rental locations' with scope 'near a city, airport, or coordinates.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_vehicles' or 'get_vehicle_details,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 by mentioning search criteria (city, airport, coordinates) and return details, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_vehicles' or 'get_vehicle_details.' No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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