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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results carry address and contact data and discloses the underlying endpoint (a POST used for listing, which is non-obvious), but says nothing about pagination behavior or total counts.

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, scope first and the endpoint detail second; nothing is buried. The endpoint string is marginally useful metadata rather than filler, so only minor trimming is possible.

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 does partially compensate by naming the returned fields (address, contact data). However, it omits pagination semantics for a tool whose only optional params are paging controls, leaving the iteration contract implicit.

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%, so page_size, company_id and page_token are all documented in the schema. The description only repeats that the listing is scoped to a company; it adds no format or usage nuance beyond the schema.

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 locations of a company') and clarifies that 'business' means location, which disambiguates from siblings like moego_get_company. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from moego_get_business, but the list-vs-get distinction is conveyed by the verb.

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: an agent can infer this is the paged enumeration tool for companies' locations, but the description never says when to prefer it over moego_get_business or how to iterate pages. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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