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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: results are paged ('one page'), only 'active' locations are returned, visibility is scoped to assigned locations, and an items:read scope is required. It stops short of explaining pagination mechanics or the exact shape of the visibility restriction.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the permission prerequisite follows. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, visibility restriction, and auth requirement. The only real gap is the undocumented pagination parameters, which the schema types alone leave ambiguous.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not: page, limit, and include_total are never mentioned or explained. The phrase 'one page' only vaguely hints that pagination exists without clarifying defaults, bounds, or what include_total toggles.

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 ('Read one page of active inventory locations and their UUIDs'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling list tools for customers, items, invoices, and sales orders. The title's 'warehouses' vs. the description's 'locations' creates minor terminology drift, but the intent remains unambiguous.

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?

The prerequisite 'Requires items:read' and the note that 'assigned-location visibility applies' give useful context for whether a call will succeed and what it will return. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to call, and no reference to alternative tools for related lookups.

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