Location Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the 'by identifier' keying hint; it discloses nothing further about behavior because none is needed for a safe single-item read with an output schema.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource and free of filler. Every word earns its place for a tool this simple.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description, annotations, complete schema coverage and existing output schema together give an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. The only shortfall is the absence of explicit sibling routing to locations_list.

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% and the single parameter already documents itself as 'Location ID or name'. The description's 'by identifier' merely echoes this, adding no syntax, format, or matching-rule detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get a specific location from LibreNMS by identifier.' The word 'specific' implicitly contrasts with the sibling locations_list, and 'by identifier' signals the lookup key. It does not explicitly name the alternative list tool, but an agent can distinguish the single-item fetch from the list.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch one location when you already have its ID or name, versus locations_list for enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative, so the routing guidance is only inferable.

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