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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds value by disclosing the backing endpoint (GET /api/v1/resource/Company) and the Company/location naming convention. It does not describe return contents, so with annotations carrying the safety burden this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with no waste, front-loaded with the action and resource. Each sentence earns its place by adding terminology mapping and endpoint provenance.

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 tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description is close to complete: it identifies the resource, maps Deputy's odd naming, and explains the returned Id's role. It could optionally note whether the list is paginated or filtered, but nothing required to invoke it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The note about the Id field being consumed as location_id elsewhere usefully explains what downstream tools expect, though it is return semantics rather than parameter semantics.

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 install's locations) and immediately disambiguates the terminology mapping (Deputy calls a location a Company). It also discloses the underlying endpoint, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like deputy_list_areas or deputy_list_employees without opening a schema.

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 implied rather than stated: the note that the returned Id is what other tools take as location_id signals this is a lookup to resolve location IDs before calling other tools. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so it lands at minimum-viable implied guidance.

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