explain_data_location

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

With no annotations, the description must bear full transparency burden. It only says 'whether it is nested or referenced' but does not disclose how this is determined, what output format is used, or any limitations (e.g., handling of multiple occurrences).

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, which is concise but omits necessary detail for effective use. It would benefit from additional sentences explaining output and usage.

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 two required parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what output to expect (e.g., a path string or list of paths) or how the tool relates to 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate. But it adds no meaning beyond parameter names. 'response' and 'field_name' are obvious from names; the description does not explain expected format, constraints, or relationships.

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 verb 'find' and the resource 'field in a response', and specifies two aspects: location (where it appears) and structure (nested or referenced). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_field_presence' which would only check existence.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_response_structure' or 'check_field_presence'. There are no when/why/exclusions mentioned.

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