run_wellfound_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose useful behavioral facts beyond the schema: that the output is a list of locations with slugs, and that pricing is 'flat 5 points per successful run'. However it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination behavior for a listing endpoint.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the resource and its return value come first, filters second, pricing last. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 simple two-parameter, zero-required lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, output shape (locations + slug), filters, and cost. It is nearly sufficient, with only return format/pagination detail missing.

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%, with the enum values already documented inline. The description only restates 'optional type and name filters', adding no syntax, matching, or default detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific resource (Wellfound job locations: US cities, US states, countries, other places) and what it yields (the slug usable as a location in Wellfound jobs search). This clearly differentiates it from run_wellfound_jobs_search, which consumes the slug, and from run_wellfound_companies.

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 phrase 'with the slug to use as the location in Wellfound jobs search' supplies clear usage context: this is the lookup step that feeds a location-filtered jobs search. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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