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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds the sheet-scoping context, but does not explain what happens when sheet_number is omitted or how results are ordered/limited.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool and gets to the point immediately.

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 simple read tool with rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves a real gap around the optional sheet_number behavior and does not clarify whether results are scoped to one sheet or all sheets when omitted.

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 0% and the only parameter (sheet_number) has no schema description. The description says 'for a sheet', which vaguely maps to the parameter, but does not explain the accepted range (1–10), default behavior when omitted, or how it filters results.

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 states a clear verb (List) and resource (inventory locations) with scope (for a sheet). It distinguishes from list_stock and list_stock_movements by focusing on locations themselves, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 implied: call this when you need the inventory locations associated with a sheet. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like list_stock or get_stock_overview.

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