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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by naming the underlying endpoint (GET /company/list-local) and the returned field set, which matters since no output schema exists; it does not cover pagination, ordering, or auth requirements.

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: purpose, downstream use, endpoint. The most decision-relevant fact (which ids you get and what they are for) is front-loaded, and there is 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return shape, the endpoint, and the downstream dependency. Minor gaps remain: whether results span all units at once and whether there is any paging.

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 of 4 applies. The description's mention of id/name/unidade_id refers to response fields rather than inputs, so no parameter meaning is needed or missed.

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+resource ('Rooms/locations registered in each unit') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, unidade_id). The relational framing ('in each unit') implicitly distinguishes it from feegow_list_units, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 location id is needed to create appointments' gives a concrete reason to call this before feegow_create_appointment, establishing clear usage context. It lacks explicit exclusions or a statement of when another listing tool (e.g., list_units) is the better choice.

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