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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no pagination, ordering, auth requirements, or what constitutes a 'door' — so it earns little credit beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition; the scope qualifier is placed immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose sibling set makes the CRUD context clear, so the description is minimally adequate. It still omits what fields a door record contains and whether the result is paginated, which would matter to an agent planning a workflow.

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 0% for locationId, so the description must compensate. Saying 'at a location' loosely maps the parameter to a location identifier, giving the agent a workable inference, but it provides no format, ID type, or validation guidance.

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 (List) and a specific resource (dock doors at a location), so an agent immediately knows this is a read of door records scoped to one site. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like create_door or update_door, though the verb makes the distinction largely self-evident.

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 phrase 'at a location' implies the call is scoped to one site, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to get_location_setup or other location-related siblings.

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