merit_list_fixed_asset_locations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly notes 'No filters', which is useful for a zero-parameter list operation, but it does not mention pagination, return format, authentication needs, or system-specific behavior.

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 a single sentence that wastes no words. It includes the endpoint, the resource type, and the key behavioral constraint ('No filters'), all front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 no-parameter list tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource, provides the endpoint, and notes the absence of filters. It could be slightly more complete by indicating what the response contains, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds value by stating 'No filters', confirming that the endpoint accepts no filter inputs and that all locations are returned.

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 and resource: 'List Merit Aktiva fixed-asset locations', and includes the endpoint. It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from related siblings like merit_list_locations by specifying 'fixed-asset 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 intended use is implied by the action 'List ... fixed-asset locations', but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as merit_list_locations or merit_list_fixed_assets. No when-not guidance is provided.

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