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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the 100-salon cap, the specific field subset returned, excluded categories, and the `hasMore` truncation indicator. This gives the agent an accurate model of the operation's behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the field list, exclusions, alternative routing, and truncation behavior—every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what comes back, what is omitted, when results are truncated, and where to go for deeper detail.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context like the result limit and field selection, though there is no parameter-specific semantics needed beyond what the empty schema already confirms.

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'), a bounded resource ('up to 100 HairDora salons'), and the scope ('in the authenticated user's organization'). It also distinguishes itself from get_salon by clarifying that this is a light inventory, not a detailed configuration lookup.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use a sibling: 'call get_salon for one selected salon's operational configuration.' It also defines what this tool is not for by listing excluded fields, so there is no ambiguity between list_salons and get_salon.

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