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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the returned fields and the underlying endpoint (GET /locations), but is silent on pagination, ordering, or whether results can be truncated for large accounts.

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 sentences, no filler. The what-is-returned statement comes first, followed by the dependency cue, which is the right ordering for an agent planning a call sequence.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return shape burden and does so by listing id, name and status. The only gap is pagination/result-size behavior, which matters for a list endpoint on an open-world API.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no filtering input is needed. Nothing further is required of it on this dimension.

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 (locations) and clarifies the domain term with "sites/companies inside the account," plus names the returned fields (id, name, status). This cleanly distinguishes it from the singular sibling papershift_get_location.

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?

"Most other tools need a location id from here" is an explicit prerequisite/ordering cue that tells an agent to call this first. It doesn't explicitly say to use papershift_get_location when a single id is already known, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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