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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/clients/{clientId}/locations), which aids transparency about the data source, but says nothing about return shape, empty results, or pagination.

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 with the scope stated first and the endpoint second; nothing redundant or padded.

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 simple single-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (locations of one client) and the endpoint. Only minor gaps remain around result ordering/pagination, which are low-stakes here.

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 100% for the single client_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description only restates that the list is scoped to one client, adding no format or validation details beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3.

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) and resource (locations/sites) explicitly scoped to one client, which distinguishes it from the unrelated gorelo_list_clients and other list_* siblings. The parenthetical '(sites)' usefully disambiguates the term 'locations'.

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?

Usage is implied — 'of one client' signals you must target a specific client — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., how this differs from gorelo_list_clients or gorelo_get_client). An agent can infer intent but not the routing conditions.

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