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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it explains pagination, says the tool returns actual internal location IDs, and warns that a site number is not a locationId.

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?

The description is three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted text. The most important usage caveat, that a site number is not a locationId, is stated directly.

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 list/search tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, pagination, return-ID concept, and the locationId resolution caveat. Parameter details are thin because schema coverage is zero, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 must compensate for all three parameters. It does explain that search operates on name or site number and that pagination is supported, but it does not add detail about limit/offset behavior or constraints beyond the schema itself.

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 states a specific verb and resource: find sites by name or site number, with pagination. It also clarifies a key distinguishing role by saying this tool returns actual internal location IDs and should be used to resolve a site number before calling tools that require locationId.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use search to resolve a human site number into an internal locationId before calling tools that require locationId. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_location or find_locations_by_field, so exclusions are absent.

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