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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive safety profile, and the description adds two genuinely valuable facts beyond them: a hard throttle of 5 requests/minute and the fact that disabled warehouses are excluded from results. It does not describe the pagination envelope or response shape, but the throttling disclosure meaningfully changes how an agent should pace calls.

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 tight sentences: contents of the response first, then the operational caveat and endpoint. No filler, and the throttling warning is placed where it will be read before the call.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies purpose, content, scope restriction, and rate limit. Only the pagination/multi-page behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable since no output schema exists to carry it.

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%, and the skip/limit descriptions already explain the vendor-page windowing and the next.skip chaining. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so this sits at the baseline where the schema does all the work.

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?

Specific verb (list) + resource (locations) with the returned fields enumerated (warehouse, location code, parent location/container, total quantity) and the underlying endpoint cited. The 'enabled warehouses' scope implicitly separates it from the inventory-quantity siblings like get_inventory_by_location, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied by scope: it returns locations in enabled warehouses, so it is the discovery call before quantity lookups. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over skuvault_list_warehouses or skuvault_get_inventory_by_location, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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