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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the pagination behavior ('Paged'), the endpoint path, and the shape of each returned record (id, name, address, tracks stock) where no output schema exists. It omits default page size and whether inactive locations are included by default, which would have completed the picture.

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, zero filler, with the resource identity front-loaded before the downstream usage note and the pagination/endpoint details. Every clause carries information.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags pagination, which an agent needs to chain calls. Minor gaps remain: no default page size and no statement about status filtering defaults, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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% and every parameter, including the enum with its quirky 'expried' spelling, is documented in the schema. The description adds only the bare note that results are paged, which the schema already covers, 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 ('branches, stores and warehouses') plus the fields returned, which distinguishes it from inventory-focused siblings. It does not explicitly name sapo_list_inventory_levels, but the parenthetical output fields make the scope 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?

'Use the ids for stock levels' gives a concrete downstream usage that routes the agent toward the inventory-level tools after calling this one. There is no explicit when-not clause or naming of alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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