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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: results are restricted to locations the API client was granted, which is a permission-scoping constraint the agent cannot derive from the schema or annotations.

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, each earning its place: purpose plus returned fields first, then the dependency hint, then the permission caveat. Fully front-loaded with no filler.

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 no-required-param list tool with rich annotations and a 100%-documented schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, permission scope and downstream dependency. There is no output schema, but the field list effectively substitutes for it.

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%, so page, page_length, active and location_ids are already documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering syntax or pagination guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clinic's locations') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, address, time zone, active), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clearly distinguishable from the other list_* siblings by resource.

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 by most other tools' supplies a concrete reason to call this tool first, which is real usage context. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming an alternative, but for a base listing tool there is no real alternative among siblings.

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