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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the returned fields, which stands in for the missing output schema, but it says nothing about result volume, ordering, or behavior when the city filter matches nothing.

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 with zero filler, and the returned-field list is front-loaded. It is written as a sentence fragment lacking a verb, which reads slightly telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and the shape of the response, which is the main thing an agent needs. Only unboundedness (no pagination or result-limit note) is left unstated, a minor gap at this complexity level.

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% and the single parameter carries its own description, so the schema does the work. The description's 'Optionally filter by city' only reinforces that the filter is optional, adding no matching semantics (exact vs partial, case sensitivity) beyond the schema.

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 — offices, shops or service points of this brand — and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can see this is a location-directory read rather than a profile or service lookup. It does not name any sibling to differentiate against, and it relies on the tool name for the verb 'list'.

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 tool for 'where are your offices / what's the phone number of the Paris store' questions. There is no statement of when not to use it, no mention of alternatives (e.g. get_brand_profile for corporate HQ details), and no note on whether results are global by default.

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