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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the safety bar is low. The description goes beyond them by stating the required scope (locations:read, any member) and the single-location defaulting behavior, both of which are operationally useful.

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 short sentences, each load-bearing: what is returned, when to call it first, and the one-location edge case. The most important routing hint ("Start here") is front-loaded after the resource statement.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the concrete fields returned and the id used as a foreign key elsewhere. Auth requirements and the degenerate single-location case are both covered, so an agent has everything needed to call and use the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics that do not exist.

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) plus resource (dock location / facility) and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, address, timezone, booking-page slug). This distinguishes it immediately from create_location, update_location_details, and list_doors in the sibling set.

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?

Explicit workflow positioning: "Start here: almost every other tool needs a locationId" tells the agent when to reach for this tool before others. It also handles the single-location edge case with a default rule, though it does not name a competing alternative to avoid, which keeps it short of a 5.

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