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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — the result set deliberately excludes phone, email, and ranking — but says nothing about filtering behavior, result volume, or pagination, so it adds little beyond the annotations.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the most important fact (what fields come back), but it is written as two clipped fragments rather than a sentence, so terseness comes at the cost of clarity rather than from 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?

For a three-filter listing tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain the filters and the shape of the list. It gives only a partial field inventory and an exclusion list, leaving the agent guessing about the core query mechanics.

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?

Three parameters (area, country, locality) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about any of them — not their format, whether they combine as AND filters, or whether they are exact-match or substring. With the schema carrying no documentation and the description not compensating, an agent cannot use these filters confidently.

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 is a noun fragment ('Public centre fields already shown on centre pages') that never states the action; the reader must infer 'lists centres' from the tool name alone. It conveys the field scope of the result but not the verb or resource, and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like list_species or search_sites.

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 statement of when to call this tool or which sibling to use instead. The only routing signal is negative scope ('No phone, email, or ranking'), which weakly implies 'use something else if you need contact data' but never names that alternative.

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