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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful extras: an auth fact ("Needs no sign-in") and a data-scope guarantee ("and nothing else"), telling the agent no private or extra data surfaces. It omits return format and any rate/pagination 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the agent receives, followed by the auth fact and the multi-location procedure. The phrasing "answer again with its locationId" is slightly awkward but every sentence carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned content, the auth requirement, and the multi-location branch — enough to call it correctly. Return structure and format are left unspecified, which is acceptable here.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal semantics: that supplying `locationId` on a repeat call is what unlocks the services list, slightly clarifying why the parameter exists.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces (locations, services, prices, add-ons, deposit) and scopes it as "the same as its booking page shows and nothing else." That is a specific resource with a real boundary, though it never names a sibling tool to contrast against (find_business only appears in the schema).

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 useful operational context — no sign-in needed, and re-call with `locationId` when there is more than one open location — but it never states when to reach for this tool over find_business or the booking-flow siblings. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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