shelf_list_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior for a paginated endpoint, no default workspace resolution behavior, and no note on the openWorld search scope.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise: it omits the scope, target resource meaning, and pagination contract that an agent needs. Brevity here costs information rather than saving it.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description should at least describe what a location record is and how results are paged/defaulted. None of that is present, leaving the agent with only the tool name and schema to work from.

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 description coverage is 75% (page, orgId, perPage are documented; search is not). The description's mention of 'search' loosely maps to the undocumented param but adds no syntax, matching, or format detail, so it does not compensate for the gap. Baseline 3 given the largely self-documenting schema.

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 names a verb ('List/search') and a resource ('locations'), which is enough to distinguish it from shelf_list_assets or shelf_list_tags. However, it never says what a 'location' is in this domain or what the combined list/search behavior means, so the purpose is only vaguely conveyed.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus siblings such as shelf_lookup_code, shelf_bulk_update_location, or shelf_list_assets, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., workspace scoping). Usage must be inferred entirely.

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