merit_list_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the API endpoint, the fact that there are no filters, and the exact return fields. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination is involved, or whether any authentication or permissions are required. For a zero-parameter list tool this is a moderate gap, but the word 'List' implies a read operation.

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 whole description is one tight, front-loaded sentence. It immediately states the action and resource, then adds the endpoint, a filter guarantee, and the return summary. Every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description gives the agent enough to call it correctly: no filters, endpoint, and return fields. Minor omissions like explicit read-only confirmation or pagination behavior exist, but they do not block correct usage for a straightforward list operation.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'No filters', which reinforces that the agent should not attempt to pass filtering arguments. Nothing further is needed.

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 specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('Merit Aktiva stock locations'), and the HTTP endpoint, which unambiguously identifies the operation. It also states 'No filters', distinguishing this from more complex list tools and making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools such as merit_list_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 description clearly conveys that this tool is for retrieving stock locations with no filtering, and the return fields are specified. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or define exclusion criteria, but the resource type is distinctive enough that an agent can infer when to use this versus other list tools.

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