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 safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the call returns exactly one page and is keyset-paged via next_cursor -> start_cursor, which is the key operational trait an agent needs.

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, front-loaded sentences: identity and returned fields first, endpoint second, paging contract last. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 compensates by naming the paging mechanism and the kind of data returned (address, coordinates, radius). Filtering/sorting parameters are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage, but the response envelope is only partially described.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by linking the start_cursor parameter to the response's next_cursor field, clarifying the paging contract in a way the schema alone does not, but it adds nothing about name/sort_by/per_page semantics.

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 places') and immediately disambiguates the domain term with '(geofences/locations)'. The mention of returned fields (address, coordinates, radius) and the underlying endpoint GET /places makes the scope unambiguous against the many other fleetio_list_* siblings.

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 description explains how to page ('pass next_cursor as start_cursor') but never states when to use this tool versus an alternative, nor any prerequisites (e.g., permissions or when places are relevant vs vehicle/contact lookups). Usage is implied rather than guided; given no true sibling overlap for listing places, this is adequate but thin.

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