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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description need not carry the safety profile. It usefully adds what the payload contains (address, phone, amenities) and the underlying endpoint (GET /site/locations), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding, front-loaded with the primary purpose and the returned fields before the endpoint reference. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the key returned fields and the pagination parameters are fully documented in the schema. It is nearly complete for a simple list tool, missing only guidance on differentiating from mindbody_list_sites.

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 coverage is 100% and both pagination parameters carry defaults and a TotalResults pointer in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline 3 for well-documented schemas.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (business's locations, glossed as studios/branches) and previews the returned fields (address, phone, amenities). It does not explicitly differentiate from the nearest sibling, mindbody_list_sites, 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?

"Location ids are needed to book appointments" gives a concrete downstream reason to call this tool, which is more than pure implication. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. list_sites) or states when-not to use this tool, so guidelines remain suggestive rather than explicit.

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