get_v1_location_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states a GET operation returning a location object, omitting any details about error states (e.g., not found), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The minimal description fails to inform the agent of important behavioral traits.

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 short (two lines) but includes some redundancy: the first line repeats the HTTP method and path which are already implied by the tool name. The second sentence is efficient. Minor waste prevents a top score of 5.

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 tool with no output schema and one required parameter, the description should explain the return value structure and potential behavior. It only says 'Get location object', leaving out what fields the object contains, error handling, or response details. This inadequacy leaves the agent with insufficient information for safe invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, so the description's mention of 'by id' adds basic context that the parameter is the location identifier. However, it does not specify the format, constraints, or source of the ID, leaving the agent to infer details from the parameter name.

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 states the tool retrieves a location object by its ID, clearly indicating the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling location tools like get_v1_location_guides or get_v1_location_medias_recent, which limits clarity when selecting among multiple location endpoints.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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