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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real behavioral context: the Admin-scoped visibility of results and the API-key/access requirement. That auth and scope disclosure goes beyond what the annotations state.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the return content, then usage, time-zone note, and auth need. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the 'Mariana Tek:' prefix is slightly redundant with the title.

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 input or output schema, the description carries the burden and largely meets it by stating what is returned and the visibility scope. It could say a bit more about item shape (e.g. location name), but it is sufficient to call correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4. Nothing further is needed, though the cross-reference to 'location_id from each item' elegantly documents that this call is the source of an ID used elsewhere.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (studio locations) and immediately enumerates what each item carries (address and time zone). It also differentiates itself in the ecosystem by pointing to list_classes, so an agent knows exactly what this call yields.

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?

Gives clear context: it returns every location the Admin account can see, the location_id feeds list_classes, and times elsewhere rely on the location's time zone. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming an alternative, but for a parameterless list tool the routing is clear.

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