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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: the required read_locations scope, the underlying GET /api/3.0/locations.json endpoint, and the field set returned. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond what the schema says.

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, front-loaded with what the resource is and its fields, followed by usage and prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields; auth scope and endpoint are also given, and pagination is covered by the schema. Complete enough for an agent to call correctly, with only minor gaps like unpaginated vs paginated semantics.

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% and both parameters (page, limit) are documented in-schema including the next_page chaining hint. The description adds nothing about either parameter, 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 locations') and enumerates returned fields (address, phone, is_primary, pickup settings), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also distinguishes itself from easystore_list_inventory_levels by noting 'Use the ids for inventory levels', though the sibling is not named directly.

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?

'Use the ids for inventory levels' gives a clear downstream-use cue and implicitly routes the agent toward easystore_list_inventory_levels, and 'Needs read_locations' states the prerequisite scope. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, which keeps it at 4.

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