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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds the endpoint (GET /locations) and the shape of the payload (address, time zone, managers), which is modest extra value; it says nothing about pagination behavior or rate limits beyond what the schema params already state.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the resource and its payload fields come first, endpoint second. 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with fully documented params and an annotation covering the safety profile, the description is close to complete, even naming the returned fields in lieu of an output schema. Only pagination/return-size behavior is left to the schema.

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 four parameters (ids, limit, offset, include_deleted) are already documented with paging semantics in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, 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 (List) and resource (locations), and disambiguates the term by glossing it as 'sites/branches' and naming the returned fields (address, time zone, managers). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling covers locations, so the resource noun is sufficient to distinguish it.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb/resource: call this to enumerate locations. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives (e.g. get_user for managers), leaving context to inference.

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