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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so 'Read-only' is partly redundant. However, the description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: how to interpret the returned equipment list (known-available vs. exhaustively complete), that load ceilings and explicit user limits must be respected, and that user-stated location/equipment overrides assumptions.

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 purpose, then usage, then the planning rule, then the sibling handoff. Dense but every clause carries information; the long middle sentence on availability semantics is the one place a reader must slow down, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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 an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still flags that location ids are emitted for manage_location. Together with the usage triggers and the availability-interpretation rule, nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail and instead spends its words on output interpretation, which is the right allocation for a no-arg list tool.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('List the user's saved training locations') and immediately enumerates the content shape (equipment per location, heaviest dumbbell and barbell load). This distinguishes it from the many other list_* siblings (list_workouts, list_meals, etc.) without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 names three trigger conditions ('when the user asks where or with what they can train, before editing a location, or when planning needs equipment availability') and points to the sibling that consumes its output ('Returns each location id for manage_location'). It also states an interpretation rule: listed equipment is known-available, not proof that unlisted incidental supports are absent.

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