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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds that results are team-scoped and maps the call to GET /warehouses, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or return shape.

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 purpose front-loaded; nothing is padded. The trailing API endpoint clause is of marginal value to an agent but costs almost nothing.

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?

A simple one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema — the description is adequate to call it, but with no output schema the agent gets no sense of what a warehouse record contains or how many are returned.

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 single optional parameter (team_region_id) is fully documented in the schema as a region filter. The description adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the team's warehouses') and scopes it to the team, which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, but no sibling lists warehouses, so the resource alone disambiguates.

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 by the tool name and purpose — there is no statement of when to reach for this versus a sibling, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. For a single-purpose reference lookup this is tolerable, but nothing is spelled out.

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