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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, but the description adds value beyond them: inactive doors are returned, results come in display order, and access requires the locations:read scope for any member. Authorization and result-set breadth are exactly the behaviors annotations cannot express.

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: return shape first, then usage routing, then the alternative and the scope requirement. No filler, and the most load-bearing content (what it returns and why to call it) is front-loaded.

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 the returned fields and ordering, and it covers auth scope, inactive-record inclusion, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this read tool correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, documented at 100% schema coverage ('Location id, from list_locations'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format or syntax detail about locationId, matching the baseline 3 for single-parameter tools whose schema is complete.

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 ('List a location's dock doors') and even enumerates the returned fields ({ id, name, sortOrder, isActive }), including the non-obvious detail that inactive doors are included. It further narrows the scope against the adjacent sibling get_location_setup, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 an explicit positive use case (obtain a doorId to feed create_appointment, reschedule_appointment, or update_door) and an explicit exclusion routing to get_location_setup for appointment-type limits and door hours. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated rather than implied.

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