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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile; the description adds the useful scoping fact that these are public locations, plus the underlying API route. It does not disclose the return format, pagination, or whether the list is static or account-dependent, so it adds modest context beyond 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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded with no filler. The trailing 'Public API: GET /v1/locations' is marginally useful for traceability but does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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-parameter, read-only listing tool with readOnlyHint covering the safety profile, the description is close to complete. The one residual gap is that no output schema exists, so the shape of a returned location object is never described.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming that the listing is unfiltered and global.

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 (public checking locations Checkly can run checks from), and the qualifier 'public' implicitly contrasts with the sibling checkly_list_private_locations. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but the phrasing 'locations Checkly can run checks from' implies the purpose (discovering location identifiers for check configuration). Usage is inferable for a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, not spelled out.

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