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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds a real behavioral constraint the annotations cannot convey: results are capped at up to 100 salons, and it enumerates the returned fields. It does not address what happens when more than 100 exist (truncation/pagination), leaving one gap.

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 tight sentences: the trigger and the exclusion are front-loaded, and the payload description follows. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return structure, yet it still summarizes the key fields and the 100-salon cap. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to select and call it.

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 per the baseline rule a 4 applies. There is no parameter semantics for the description to add, and it correctly does not invent any.

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 and resource (list salons) and explicitly names the returned fields (id, name, currency, default language, last edit time). It also carves out a boundary against sibling tools: "Not for a salon's address, phone or opening hours," which distinguishes it from get_salon/show_salon_overview.

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?

Gives clear trigger conditions: when a user asks which salons they run, or when a salon id is needed for a follow-up call. It also states what the tool is not for. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (get_salon) for detail lookups, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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