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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the workspace scoping constraint, which is useful context, but it does not disclose default status handling, pagination, or what 'physical' excludes. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, stating the action, resource, and scope efficiently.

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 simple three-optional-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations and schema is nearly complete. It could mention that query searches by location name and that status filters results, but the schema already covers those, so the minor gap does not significantly hinder an agent.

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 67% (query and status are described; limit is not), and the description itself adds no parameter detail beyond the schema. The schema's descriptions for query and status are adequate, and limit is inferable from its name and constraints, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('physical locations') and scopes it to 'the authenticated workspace,' which clearly distinguishes this from singular get-location and from report-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly mention the search/filter capability implied by the tool name, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get-location, reports-by-location, or the many other search-* tools. It only states what it does, with no when/when-not or alternative routing.

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