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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. What the description does add is relational semantics beyond structured data: the id is a foreign key for other lists/reports and the anchor for internships and employment periods. It omits pagination behavior and the cap of 100 implied by the schema.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the cross-referencing detail. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the parenthetical examples are compact.

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 read-only list with annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves real gaps: no pagination guidance despite limit/offset, no explanation of is_active, and no hint about what fields a location record contains beyond id. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the result shape or filtering behavior.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for limit, offset, and is_active — and it says nothing about any of them. The only field it explains ('id') is a return value, not an input. Notably, it never clarifies whether is_active=true filters to active locations only.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the workspace's locations') and immediately disambiguates the term with concrete examples (shops, offices, sites). It also explains the entity's role in the domain ('the place an internship or an employment period is attached to'), which no sibling list tool would claim.

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?

Usage is only implied: by saying the returned 'id' is the 'location_id' filter that every report and list accepts, it hints this is a lookup you call before filtering elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no guidance on when to prefer it over something like hr_list_engagements or hr_list_internships.

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