List locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'paginated', and omits notable behavior disclosed in the schema such as the auto-pagination cap of 10,000 rows, truncation flags, and the unverified status of parent_id server support.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint and operation. Efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted above.

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 zero-required-param read-only list with rich annotations, this is minimally adequate. However, the auto-pagination / truncation behavior (via the `all` parameter) is significant for correct invocation and is not surfaced in the description.

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 coverage is 60%; the schema itself documents `all`, `limit`, and the caveat on `parent_id`. The description repeats search/parent_id filtering but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States the resource (locations) and the operation (GET a paginated list) clearly, so the agent knows this is a read/list endpoint. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling location tools (snipeit_get_location, snipeit_gen_locations, etc.), which is the main gap.

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?

Mentions that search and parent_id filtering are supported, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing (e.g., when to use snipeit_get_location for a single location instead). Usage is only implied.

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