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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered; the description's real contribution is disclosing that the same call returns two structurally different results (catalog vs. per-member resolution) depending on the date argument, which is not visible from annotations and would otherwise surprise an agent. It does not mention pagination limits or auth/scope requirements, but those are largely covered by the schema and annotations.

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 front-loaded sentences plus the endpoint path, with zero filler. The alternate-mode behavior is stated immediately after the default behavior, matching the order in which an agent reasons about the call.

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 zero-required-parameter, three-param read tool with no output schema, the definition covers both result shapes conceptually and points at the endpoint. It could say marginally more about what a location record contains, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 and per_page semantics are already fully documented in the schema; the description only reinforces the date parameter's mode-switching effect, adding the qualifier 'active team member' and the notion of a resolved location. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 active working locations (the catalog)') and clarifies that the tool has two modes depending on whether a date is supplied. This is clear enough to act on, though it never names the closest sibling (get_team_member_working_location) or list_offices to mark the boundary between catalog-level and per-member data.

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?

'With a date, instead returns where each active team member works on that date' gives a concrete rule for selecting between the tool's two behaviors, which is the main usage decision an agent faces. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over the sibling get_team_member_working_location for a single person, so there is no explicit exclusion.

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