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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which fully covers the safety profile. The description adds the returned field set (address, time zone, lock/member counts) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or organization scoping. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the verb and the clarifying parenthetical, with no filler. The trailing 'GET /places' adds a modest amount of value as an API mapping but is arguably redundant.

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 five-parameter, optional-args list tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the main returned fields, which compensates for the missing response schema. It omits pagination semantics and list-vs-get routing, leaving a small but real 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 description coverage is 100%, so ids, sort, limit, query, and offset are all documented in the schema itself. The description contributes only the implicit 'in the organization' scope and does not explain parameter interaction (e.g., ids vs query). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 disambiguates the domain term by equating a place with sites/buildings, then names the fields returned. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling kisi_get_place, which is the one distinction an agent could get wrong here, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer kisi_get_place for a single place, and no mention of how the filter/paging parameters should be combined. The imperative 'List places' only weakly implies usage, and no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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