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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioural value beyond that: a fixed 50-per-page result size, the full metric payload of the All Locations view, the `reports` availability map, and the status vocabulary including ad_hoc. It stops short of saying how many pages typically exist or whether an empty result differs from a filtered-out one.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and pagination sits at the end where it belongs. The middle metric enumeration is long and reads like a UI checklist, but each listed field is a genuine return-value contract given there is no output schema, so it largely earns its space.

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?

With no output schema and rich annotations, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly: identity fields, status values, every metric, the `reports` map, and the page size. An agent can call this and interpret the result without further documentation.

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 100%, so all three parameters (query, cursor, status) are already documented in the schema with an enum and a stated default. The description adds no meaning beyond that baseline — it never mentions the filters, the cursor, or what happens when status is omitted.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the locations in the account') and immediately scopes it with the metrics returned, anchored to the product concept 'as on All Locations'. The plural listing scope makes it distinguishable from the single-location sibling get_location.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the way to enumerate locations and that `query`/`status` narrow the set, but the description never says when to prefer this over get_location, nor when to skip it in favour of a report tool such as get_rank_tracker_report. No explicit exclusions.

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