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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral facts: payment-processor credentials and device settings are withheld from the response, and the underlying endpoint is GET /locations. Return shape is disclosed field-by-field, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its fields, followed by the actionable id-filtering tip and the credential exclusion. Only the bare 'GET /locations' tag is low value; otherwise every clause earns its place.

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 compensates well by enumerating returned fields and the nested registers array, and it flags excluded sensitive data. Paging is left to the schema, which handles it, so nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so limit, offset and search are fully documented in the schema, including the next_offset paging tip. The description adds no 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+resource ('List the store's locations') and enumerates exactly what each record contains, including nested registers. This clearly separates it from the get_* tools and from list_* siblings over other 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?

'Use the location ids to filter sales, expenses, customers and reports' establishes the downstream purpose and makes this the clear starting point. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative tool, so it stops just short of explicit routing.

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