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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the concrete field inventory (id, name, address, phone, email, timezone, hours, country) and the REST endpoint, which tells the agent this is a flat, cheap read with no side effects. Pagination behavior is left to the schema rather than spelled out.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, then why it matters, then the endpoint. No repetition of the title and no filler.

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 output schema, the field enumeration is the right compensating move, and the 'ids are needed for' note covers the main downstream use. Only gaps are the absence of any paging note in prose and no tie-break against agendapro_get_location, both minor given the schema.

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 100% – page, active and per_page are all documented in the schema, including the pagination.next_page hint. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the business's locations') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. The 'List' prefix plus the sibling agendapro_get_location makes the plural/singular split inferable, but the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 tells the agent why to call it: 'Location ids are needed for bookings, slots and sales filters', which routes an agent that needs a location id here. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. for a single known location, use get_location).

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