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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the pagination contract ('returns a page plus next/previous') and pins the underlying endpoint (GET /offices). That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention auth or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return shape and endpoint following. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully communicates the return shape (page plus next/previous) while the schema fully covers inputs. For a simple read-only list tool this is close to complete, missing only archived-handling or auth caveats.

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% with defaults and bounds spelled out for page, page_size, and show_archived. The description adds nothing about the 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 practice's offices/locations') plus the underlying API call. An agent can immediately tell this is a read of the office/location directory and distinguish it from the many list_* siblings covering other resources.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note on how pagination parameters should be driven. Usage is only implied by the name. There is no sibling tool that lists offices, so the omission is less costly, but the description still provides nothing.

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