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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are permission-scoped to what the signed-in user can reach, and records come back as short summaries rather than full objects.

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 sentences, zero filler. The scope and returned fields come first, and the hand-off to the detail tool is front-loaded where an agent will act on it.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so (summaries with kind and name). Access scoping and the detail-tool hand-off are covered; only paging/filtering behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 page, per_page and search are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing about filtering or paging semantics, and the schema descriptions are in a different language than the description, so there is no extra clarification.

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 (filming locations), adds the access scope (locations the signed-in user can reach), and names the fields returned (kind, name). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get-filming-location, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative get-filming-location and the exact condition that selects it (need one in full rather than a summary). No exclusions or guidance about pagination/search usage, but the primary use/alternative split is explicit.

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