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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — it says nothing about default ordering, result volume, or that pagination is auto-handled (that detail lives only in the schema).

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 with no filler, and the resource definition is front-loaded before the optional filters. It is efficiently sized, though the second sentence is close to restating the schema's filter parameters.

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-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and pagination explained in the schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits what a location record contains and any default sort/ordering, which an agent cannot infer from the other structured data.

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 in the schema. The description restates only two of the filters and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (locations), and the parenthetical clarifies the domain meaning of 'location' (rooms, floors, areas within buildings), which distinguishes it from abstract geo data. It does not, however, contrast itself with the adjacent sibling list_location_types or list_buildings.

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?

"Optionally filter by building or location type" implies when the filters are useful, giving implied usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no alternative tool is named (e.g., list_location_types for type enumeration), so guidance stays at the implied level.

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