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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces 'every office' as a complete, unfiltered enumeration with no input. It adds little beyond that — no pagination, count, or ordering information — so it clears the lowered bar but does not enrich it much.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the returned scope front-loaded and the usage guidance second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

A parameterless read tool with an output schema needs only to state scope and purpose, both of which are present. The output schema carries return-value detail, so the description is essentially complete for the agent's decision, with only minor headroom for sizing or ordering hints.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is no parameter semantics left to explain, and the description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-collection call.

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 names the resource precisely ('Every office of the firm') and enumerates the returned attributes (city, county, address, phone, website), so the agent knows exactly what this tool yields. The verb 'list' is only implied, and no sibling is named, but the siblings (get_firm_info, request_consultation, search_pages) are plainly distinct.

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 states a concrete use case: 'Use it to pick the office nearest the person,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It does not name an alternative or an exclusion, but no competing office-listing tool exists among the siblings, so the routing is unambiguous.

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