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 genuine behavioral context beyond the schema by disclosing that the endpoint is paged and that the cursor is passed back via `next_page` — particularly valuable since there is no output schema to reveal that field.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with purpose stated first and the pagination mechanics and endpoint last. Every clause (scope, filter, paging, path) earns its place.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with readOnly annotations, the description covers purpose, filtering, and pagination adequately. Without an output schema the response shape is largely unspecified beyond the `next_page` hint, which is the only minor gap.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the enum values and the 'next_page from the previous reply' hint on `page`. The description's 'optionally by kind' and 'pass next_page as page' restate the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List the company's headquarters') and clarifies scope with '(legal and operative sites)', which maps directly to the enum values. No sibling tool lists headquarters, so differentiation is trivially satisfied and the agent can act immediately.

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?

'optionally by kind' implies the filter is discretionary and the pagination sentence implies how to continue, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to filter by kind (e.g., when only legal entities are needed) and no exclusions or alternatives, leaving usage largely inferred.

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