get_personnel_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a safe read. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (name, coordinates, map, area) and notes internal parallel query behavior, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 concise: three lines covering query purpose, parameter specification, return info, and a note. Front-loaded with an emoji and key action, no extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With one required parameter, full annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear set of return fields and a behavioral note. It is complete for a simple query tool, though it could mention error handling or whether multiple names can be queried at once.

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 100% and the parameter description in the schema already explains the parameter. The tool description repeats the schema info with an example, but adds no extra semantics regarding format, validation, or constraints beyond the example. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it queries real-time location by personnel name or ID. It distinguishes from siblings like get_tag_location (by tag), get_area_personnel (by area), and search_personnel (search), making the tool's specific resource and action unambiguous.

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 implies usage for getting location of a known person but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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