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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds what the created record lacks (no hours, appointment types, or doors, so no bookings yet), the auth requirement (locations:write, Admin role), the plan limit with the payment_required failure mode, and the return payload (id and bookingPageUrl). That is substantial context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Dense single paragraph, front-loaded with the primary action and its key limitation, then follow-up routing, alternatives, plan constraint, and return value. Slightly packed – the auth/plan clauses could be split – but nearly every clause carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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 naming what is returned (the location with id and bookingPageUrl), and it covers the post-creation workflow and permission requirements. An agent has everything needed to call it and to anticipate the follow-up call.

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 100% and all seven parameters (including the timezone note that hours and dates use it) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance such as address-format constraints or required-vs-optional emphasis, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a new facility (location record only)') with an explicit scoping caveat that distinguishes it from set_up_location and update_location_details. An agent can tell from the first sentence that this is a bare record-creation step, not a configuration step.

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 states the follow-up path ('follow up with set_up_location, which configures all of that on the new locationId'), names the alternatives for editing an existing location, and flags the plan constraint with the payment_required condition. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and sequencing are all present.

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