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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by saying what comes back (ids and properties) and why the ids matter, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or error behavior for what is an open-world remote endpoint.

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?

One sentence plus the endpoint, with the resource and return shape front-loaded and the dependency note in parentheses. Every clause carries information an agent uses.

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 trivial read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and when to reach for it. The only meaningful omission is whether the facility list is paginated or complete, which matters for a list endpoint.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies a single unfiltered call rather than suggesting any optional filters exist.

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 warehouse's facilities') plus the payload ('ids and properties'), and pins the underlying endpoint GET /properties/facilities. An agent can tell this apart from extensiv_list_orders or extensiv_list_receivers 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?

The parenthetical 'facility ids are needed for orders, stock details and receivers' tells the agent this is a prerequisite lookup to run before those follow-on calls. It gives clear context but does not state exclusions or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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