List Check-In Locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format options (markdown/json), describes error behavior ('Error: Resource not found'), and mentions pagination through limit/offset parameters. However, it doesn't detail rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized at 5 sentences, though the parameter details in the Args section largely duplicate schema information, making it slightly less efficient than it could be.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, pagination, format options) and rich annotations covering safety aspects, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns and error conditions, though without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the structure of returned location objects beyond 'name, capacity, and check-in count.'

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%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description repeats parameter information (event_id source, limit range, offset purpose, response_format options) but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('List locations (rooms) for a check-in event') and resource ('Planning Center Check-Ins'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pco_list_checkin_events (which lists events rather than locations). The verb 'List' is precise and matches the tool's read-only nature.

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 clear context by specifying it's for 'a check-in event' and mentions getting the event_id from pco_list_checkin_events, which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name direct alternatives among siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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