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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description's main addition is the list of returned fields (address, timezone, open/public flags), which is genuinely useful. It does not add pagination behavior, rate limits, or result-size guidance beyond what the schema already carries.

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 front-loaded sentences: identity and returned fields first, then the dependency/usage note. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned content, and the key downstream dependency. Nothing essential to selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 all six parameters are fully documented in the schema, including limit bounds and cursor semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 (List) and resource (the organization's locations), and disambiguates the resource as coworking spaces/buildings with the fields returned. It clarifies role relative to other tools ('neoed by most other filters'), though it never contrasts itself against sibling list tools like list_resources.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use reason: the location _ids returned are required by most other filters and by officernd_create_member. It provides clear context but no explicit exclusions or edge cases (e.g., when a name filter is unnecessary).

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