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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds meaningful post-conditions beyond that: the location starts empty and requires set_up_location to become bookable, plus a payment_required failure mode on the Free plan. It does not describe auth requirements or what the response contains, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the post-condition, then the constraint. No filler and no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

Covers the workflow follow-up and the plan/error constraint well for a mutation tool with no output schema, but leaves the majority of input parameters unexplained. Adequate for the high-level flow, incomplete on the inputs the agent must supply.

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 only 17% (just the timezone IANA hint), and the description adds nothing about name, address, city, state, or zip. With five undocumented parameters the description should compensate for the coverage gap and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a facility'), and it distinguishes itself from the similarly named set_up_location by framing that as the follow-up step. It does not contrast with update_location_details, but the create-vs-configure distinction is legible.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: call this first, then follow up with set_up_location to build out hours, appointment types, and doors. It also names the plan gate ('Free plan allows one location; more need Pro (payment_required)'), which is real pre-call guidance. Missing only an explicit 'use update_location_details to change an existing location' counterpoint.

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