Get Sub-Account (Formerly Location)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying the required token type and scope ('Token: location or agency. Scopes: locations.readonly.'), which is valuable for execution.

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 but contains noticeable redundancy: 'Get Sub-Account (Formerly Location)' appears twice in the same sentence. The endpoint and auth details are useful, but the repetition wastes a bit of space. Still, the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter read operation with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly. It includes the endpoint, token requirement, and scopes. Since there is no output schema, a brief mention of return details could be helpful, but the operation is straightforward enough that missing it is not a major gap.

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 100% and the single parameter locationId is already described as 'Location Id'. The description adds only marginal context by referring to it as 'sub-account id', but this is largely redundant with the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('Sub-Account (Formerly Location)') and explains the lookup mechanism: 'by passing the sub-account id'. It also includes the exact endpoint, which removes ambiguity and helps distinguish it from sibling tools like locations_search_locations.

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 clearly implies this tool is for fetching a single record when the sub-account id is already known. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as locations_search_locations for discovery, so usage guidance is only implied rather than fully articulated.

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