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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description adds useful context that this hits the public GET /locations endpoint and returns address and sub-location detail. It does not mention auth requirements, result size, or whether the list is paginated or complete.

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, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the API endpoint mapping. No wasted filler, though the REST endpoint line is marginally useful for agents that reason in HTTP terms.

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 zero-param read-only list with no output schema, the description conveys the entity kind and some of the returned shape (address, sub-locations). Only the absence of any statement about result size or completeness keeps it from being fully sufficient.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs exist.

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?

A specific verb (List) plus resource (locations) and it explains what a location record contains (fields, facilities, venues, addresses, sub-locations). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular leagueapps_get_location sibling, though it never names alternatives.

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 only implied: the tool returns all locations the site uses, so an agent can infer it should use this to enumerate rather than fetch one by ID. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over leagueapps_get_location or leagueapps_get_site.

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