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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the response fields (id, name, head-office flag, address, timezone, phone, email), which matters because no output schema exists. It says nothing about pagination behavior or total counts, but the schema covers paging.

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 sentence plus the endpoint, with the payload description front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema, the description supplies the one thing structured fields don't: the shape of each returned office record. Only the missing contrast with get_office keeps it from being fully complete.

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 and per_page are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the 'pass the previous reply's next_page' convention. The description adds no parameter detail, 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 company's offices') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_office tool, leaving that differentiation to the name alone.

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 only implied: 'List' plus 'GET /offices' signals a collection read, and the presence of a get_office sibling makes the list-vs-single split inferable. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_office or list_working_locations, and no exclusions.

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