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 return-shape context (address, pickup/delivery capability) and downstream relevance, but says nothing about pagination behavior or default page size, which are left to the schema.

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 compact sentences with the resource front-loaded and the API endpoint last. Efficient, though the final endpoint sentence adds little for an agent choosing a tool.

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-only list operation with fully documented parameters, the description is sufficient. It sketches the returned fields even without an output schema, though it omits pagination expectations.

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%, so page, page_size, and archived are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 (List) and resource (pickup/return locations) and even names representative subtypes (warehouses, stores). It is uniquely distinguishable because no sibling tool lists locations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with 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?

It hints at downstream usage ('Location ids are needed for availability checks and orders') but never states a when-to-use rule or an alternative to prefer. No sibling performs this function, so implied usage is the most an agent gets.

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