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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lighter and it adds real value: it discloses the returned field set, the parent/child relationship semantics (parentFacilityUrl set for sublocations), and the underlying endpoint. It does not mention pagination behavior or that the default field set is compact.

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 dense sentence plus the endpoint, with the resource identified immediately and no filler. Every clause (sub-locations, URL reuse hint, parent linkage, status) 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and explains the parent/sub-location relationship, which is what an agent needs to use the results. It could go slightly further on result size/pagination expectations, but for a read-only list endpoint it is close to complete.

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%, with limit, fields, updated_since and updated_until all documented including the 30-day range constraint, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's field enumeration loosely maps to the 'fields' parameter but adds no syntax or default detail beyond what the schema already provides; 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 (list) plus the resource (Finale locations and sublocations) and even enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but the resource is unique among the surrounding list_* tools, so confusion is unlikely.

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 'use it in other tools' for facilityUrl is a useful workflow hint about downstream usage, implying this is a discovery step before other Finale calls. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites or alternatives are named.

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