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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination/auto-fetch behavior, result volume, or auth requirements — so it earns the baseline, not more.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, and the resource clarification is front-loaded before the filtering note. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a zero-required-param list tool with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, the description supplies enough to invoke correctly. Only minor gaps remain (no mention of pagination semantics or expected result shape, though the schema covers pagination defaults and there is no output schema to explain).

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%, so all five parameters (page, search, per_page, building_id, location_type_id) are already documented with types, UUID patterns, and defaults. The description only restates two of the filters in prose, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource and disambiguates the resource ('locations (rooms, floors, areas within buildings)'), which helps separate it from list_buildings. It does not, however, name or contrast itself against the nearest siblings such as list_buildings or list_location_types.

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?

The phrase 'Optionally filter by building or location type' implies the use case (narrowing a location list by parent building or type), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when a different tool such as list_buildings is more appropriate, and no prerequisites.

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