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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description adds real value by naming the returned fields (id, name, timezone, address), and the "GraphQL: locations" note tells integrators where to look for deeper semantics. It doesn't discuss ordering or pagination behavior beyond what the schema states.

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, front-loaded sentences that each carry distinct information: what is returned, and why an agent should call it. The trailing GraphQL pointer is compact and useful rather than 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?

For a two-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and its role as a dependency for other tools — enough to invoke it correctly. Pagination details live in the schema, so nothing critical is missing, though result ordering/size guidance is absent.

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% and both pagination parameters (after, first) are fully documented in the schema, including the cursor source and the 1-100 range. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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 and resource ("List the business's locations") and even enumerates the returned fields (id, name, timezone, address). An agent can distinguish it from the other list_* siblings (appointments, clients, orders, products, services, shifts, staff, tags) purely by the resource named.

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 sentence "Most other tools need a location id from here" gives clear context for when this tool is the right first call, effectively positioning it as the root/prerequisite lookup. It does not name a specific alternative or an explicit when-not condition, which keeps it short of a 5.

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