get_locations

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'free, no credits', which is a helpful behavioral note. It also implies a read-only retrieval of all location codes. This provides sufficient transparency for a parameterless tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with 'Reference data', and contains no unnecessary words. It is extremely concise while conveying all essential information.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is simple reference data retrieval, the description is fully complete. It states what the tool returns, its purpose, and a helpful note on cost.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it provides context on the return value's purpose (filter values).

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 the tool retrieves all available location codes for use as filter values, specifying a specific verb ('get') and resource ('location codes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search/lookup tools by describing it as reference data.

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 explicitly indicates the purpose as providing filter values for search queries, which guides appropriate usage. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but for a simple reference data tool the context is clear.

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