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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds scope context such as California-specific delivery terms and teen delivery fee, but doesn't mention return format or data freshness. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence front-loads the primary content (address and visit policy) and then lists delivery terms and regional pages. Every phrase carries information, with no filler or repetition.

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 no-parameter, read-only information tool, the description covers the key content areas: location, visit policy, delivery terms, and regional pages. It doesn't promise a specific response structure, but without an output schema the high-level enumeration is likely sufficient. It could be slightly more explicit about whether hours or contact details are included.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. Per the 0-params baseline, the description does not need to elaborate on parameters.

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 identifies the resource as nursery address, visit policy, California delivery terms, and regional pages, which clarifies what get_locations returns. It lacks an explicit verb, but 'get_locations' plus the content list makes the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_business or quote_delivery.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_business, get_availability, or quote_delivery. The description implies a static reference-info use case but does not state exclusions or preferred conditions.

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