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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the underlying endpoint (GET /warehouses) and the returned fields, which is modest added value, but says nothing about pagination limits, ordering defaults, or rate/consistency behavior.

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 plus a bare endpoint reference, with the resource and its returned fields front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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 naming the returned fields is genuinely useful, and the read-only safety profile is covered by annotations while all five params are fully described in the schema. Slightly short of complete because the relationship to the near-duplicate farmbrite_get_inventory_locations is left unexplained.

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%, so page/limit/filters/sort are already fully documented in the schema, and the description does not elaborate on any of them. The listed fields (name, description, internal id) are return values, not parameters, so they do not add parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 storage locations (warehouses) for inventory') and even previews the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate from the confusingly similar sibling farmbrite_get_inventory_locations, which keeps it from a 5.

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 line 'Use the ids when adding or removing inventory' explains the downstream purpose of the result, which implies a workflow context. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over farmbrite_get_inventory_locations or any exclusion/alternative guidance.

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