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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring a safe read, the description still adds meaningful behavior: entries include enrolled Probe counts and online status, and the listing is scoped to the authenticated user. That return-content detail goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss auth requirements or empty-result 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the resource/scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the downstream usage hint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully covers what each entry surfaces (Probe count, online status). Combined with the read-only annotation and the stated purpose of supplying private_location_id, it is nearly complete; only edge cases like empty lists or auth failure are unaddressed.

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 and there is no parameter syntax for the description to compensate for. Schema coverage is 100% but vacuous here, and nothing in the description misrepresents the input contract.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (the authenticated user's own Private Locations), and scopes it precisely to the user's own locations rather than any public/check regions. It also describes what each entry contains, so an agent knows exactly what this returns versus sibling listing tools like list-monitors or list-check-regions.

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?

Explicitly says the results are 'for use as private_location_id when creating or updating a monitor,' which is clear workflow context naming the sibling tools that consume the output. It does not, however, state when not to use this (e.g., versus list-check-regions for public locations), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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