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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the result includes each coach's client count and revenue, and the location scope is optional. It does not mention permissions or pagination, but for a read-only list tool this is a solid addition.

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 that names the verb, resource, optional filter, and returned fields with no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (client count, revenue) and the optional filter, which is the main thing annotations cannot convey. It stops short of documenting parameter formats or result ordering, but is largely complete for this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain locationId's role ('optionally filtered to one location'), but organizationId is only implied by 'in an organization' and neither parameter's format or constraints are clarified. It adds some value but not full compensation for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('List coaches in an organization') plus the scope of the optional filter, and even previews the returned fields (client count and revenue). The resource is clearly distinct from nearby siblings like list_organization_clients and list_organization_locations.

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?

The description implies the use case (retrieve an org's coaches, optionally narrowed to one location) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name an alternative such as list_organization_clients. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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