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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the API does not page, all matches are returned, results are truncated at limit, and the reply reports how many rows were cut.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output shape, then filtering, then paging behavior and endpoint. No redundant text.

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 still names the returned fields and explains the truncation and cut count, which is exactly the information an agent needs to call and interpret this read-only list tool correctly.

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 name, limit, is_deleted and is_enabled are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying the no-pagination truncation semantics of limit ('cut at limit'), which is more than the schema conveys.

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 locations') plus the domain entities it covers (plants, sites, areas) and what each row contains (ids, names, enabled flags, created/modified dates), which sharply separates it from the singular safetychain_get_location sibling. The endpoint is included as well.

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?

It implies usage by noting 'Filter by name' and that results are cut at limit, but it never states when to pick this over siblings such as safetychain_get_location or safetychain_list_resources, nor any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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