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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns a list. It does not contradict annotations and provides the scope ('every business location this ReputeMap org manages').

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 a single sentence that conveys purpose and key detail (IDs for other tools) without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple listing operation, the description provides sufficient context: it lists all locations managed by the org and highlights the usefulness of IDs. Sibling tool names clarify the tool's distinct role.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate. The mention of 'ids' pertains to the output, not parameters, and is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'business locations'. It also mentions the purpose of providing IDs for other tools, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on reviews, stats, or requests.

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?

The description implies that this tool should be used first to obtain location IDs for use in other tools, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide comparisons to siblings. The context is clear but could be more directive.

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