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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context that results are paged and that an inventory-enabled plan is required, but it does not explain return format or failure behavior when the plan requirement is unmet.

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?

The description is very short and front-loads the resource, prerequisite, paging, and endpoint. The telegraphic fragments are efficient, though not fully sentence-structured.

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 read-only list tool with fully described parameters and safety annotations, the description supplies the key extra context: inventory-plan prerequisite, pagination, and endpoint. It could say more about returned warehouse fields, but no output schema exists and the core call context is present.

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%, and the schema already documents page and page_size semantics. The description's 'Paged' note adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (warehouses) and the endpoint (GET /warehouses), and the title/name make the list operation clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings by resource but does not explicitly contrast with other list endpoints.

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?

It states a prerequisite (a Jurnal plan with inventory) but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling routing guidance is provided.

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