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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the required auth scope ('company:read') and that no caller-supplied identifier is accepted. It does not, however, say what happens if the merchant has no locations or whether the result set is paginated.

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 auth precondition is stated up front. The opening sentence is a fragment that describes the returned resource rather than the action, which slightly hurts front-loading.

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 no-parameter, read-only list under strong annotations, the essentials are present: merchant scoping, auth scope, and absence of inputs. What a location record contains and whether results are paged are unknowns, but they are minor for this complexity level.

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 schema carries all burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly reinforces that no identifier or filter is accepted, avoiding a false expectation of arguments.

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?

The description identifies the resource as the merchant's trading locations and scopes it to the authenticated merchant, but it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, so it never explicitly states that it lists/returns them. An agent must lean on the title 'List my locations' to recover the action. It does implicitly differentiate from get_business/find_business (plural, self-scoped, no identifiers).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as get_business, list_connections, or list_subjects. The phrase 'takes no identifier from the caller' hints that this is an unfiltered self-scoped listing, but no explicit condition or alternative is named.

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