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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint:false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds only a REST path ('GET /locations') and nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or whether unfiltered listing is allowed — little beyond structured data.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource; no filler. The brevity is efficient but stops just short of the point where extra detail would be useful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a returned location record contains and how paging is surfaced (the schema hints at next_page but the description does not). For a simple read-only list tool this is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 coverage is 75%, with the object_type enum carrying no per-value description. The description indirectly documents the enum's meaning ('of a customer or a job') and reinforces that object_id is a customer or job id, but adds no format, defaulting, or interaction rules beyond the schema.

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 clarifies what a location is ('service addresses'), plus the domain scope (of a customer or a job). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling fieldpulse_get_location or from other list_* tools, so it falls short of 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus fieldpulse_get_location for a single record, or versus listing customers/jobs. All four parameters are optional, yet the description never says what happens when object_id/object_type are omitted (all locations vs. error), which is exactly the decision an agent needs to make.

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