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 useful context about what the records contain (address, phone, amenities), but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, permissions, or an empty-result case, and no output schema exists to cover returns.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the downstream motivation. The trailing 'Mindbody: GET /site/locations' is mild implementation noise that does not serve an agent selecting the tool, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 read-only, two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description says enough: what is listed, what fields come back, and why the ids matter. Only pagination behaviour and the locations-vs-sites distinction are left unaddressed.

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% with two optional paging parameters, so the schema already fully documents limit and offset including defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter guidance at all, which is the correct baseline 3 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 the business's locations) and even enumerates the returned fields (address, phone, amenities) plus the downstream purpose of the ids. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling mindbody_list_sites, which an agent could plausibly confuse with locations.

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?

The line 'Location ids are needed to book appointments' supplies a workflow cue for why an agent would call this, which is more than nothing. But it names no alternatives (e.g. list_sites) and gives no when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions, so usage remains implied rather than explicit.

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