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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds the auth and scope requirements annotations cannot express: OAuth tokens need an Admin role while the scope locations:read needs any member. It also discloses that inactive appointment types are returned and that closure ids are compatible with remove_closure, which is real behavioral context rather than a restatement of the safety hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-call scope statement, and every sentence carries distinct information (contents, when to use, alternatives, auth). It is dense and semicolon-packed, which slows parsing slightly, but there is no filler to cut.

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 carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so field-group by field-group, including non-obvious items like inactive appointment types and upcoming closures. Auth, scope, and sibling relationships are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single locationId parameter is already documented as originating from list_locations, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, syntax, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is correct.

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 (get) and resource (location setup) and then enumerates exactly what the payload contains: name/address/timezone, scheduling settings, weekly hours, appointment types, doors, and upcoming closures. It explicitly positions itself as a superset of list_appointment_types, list_doors, and get_booking_page, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Read this before changing setup or when diagnosing missing times') and names three alternatives with the condition that selects each ('use those narrower reads when that's all you need, since they don't need an Admin role'). The tradeoff between breadth and privilege is spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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