get_locations

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List all locations' and lists pagination parameters, but does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether the list is scoped to a workspace, how pagination behaves, or what the response structure is. For a read-only operation, it at least implies non-destructive behavior, but that is weak.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameter details after. It earns its place without redundant fluff. However, it is perhaps too terse, leaving out usage and behavioral context that would justify a longer description.

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 simplicity of a paginated list tool, the description is minimally viable: it states what it does and the two parameters. The output schema exists, so return values are covered by schema. However, it lacks any guidance on when to use the tool, alternative tools, or behavioral notes, making it incomplete for an agent that needs to choose among many sibling tools.

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 provides a one-line explanation for each parameter ('Page number', 'Results per page'), but these add almost no value over the schema's titles and defaults. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, yet it merely restates the obvious. No parameter constraints, formats, or edge cases are mentioned.

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 'List all locations' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from other resource-specific getters like get_tickets or get_assets, and there are no competing location-related siblings. However, it lacks any additional scope detail (e.g., filtering, ordering) that would make it stand out beyond the name.

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. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a different tool (e.g., search_assets or filter_tickets) would be more appropriate. This is a clear gap.

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