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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's marginal burden is lower. It adds the returned field set and the REST endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior or ordering even though the tool is cursor-paginated per the schema.

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: the returned fields and scope come first, then the downstream dependency, then the endpoint. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (address, timezone, open/public flags), and the annotations cover safety. Cursor-based paging semantics live only in the schema, which is a minor gap for a list tool.

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 every parameter (name, limit, is_open, is_public, cursors) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 organization's locations'), clarifies the domain entity in parentheses (coworking spaces/buildings), and enumerates the returned fields. It also cites the upstream API endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from the other list_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent why it matters: location ids are required by most other filters and by officernd_create_member, which is a strong chaining/prerequisite cue. It stops short of any when-not or exclusion guidance, but the positive routing guidance is clear.

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