tickets_list_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 reveals an important behavior: 'an unresolvable location is silently dropped,' which is significant hidden behavior. It does not detail pagination or read-only semantics, but the action verb and failure-mode disclosure give useful 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 two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and a single relevant behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and there is 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?

This is a simple list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema available, so the description covers the essential behavior plus the key silent-drop caveat. It relies on prior knowledge of the contacts tool for full context, but that reference is reasonable given the 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 input schema already documents both parameters, limit and offset, with clear descriptions, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline for fully schema-covered parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List locations registered for your account.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the location resource and account scope, and the reference to contacts signals the analogous counterpart.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'Same rationale as contacts' note explains behavior but does not indicate selection criteria or exclude other tools.

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