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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds what annotations cannot: the required location:read permission, the GET endpoint, the 25-per-page default, and which data is only present when include_* flags are set. It does not mention rate limits or error/empty-result behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence that begins with the verb and resource, then layers fields, pagination, filters, permission, and endpoint. It is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an 18-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and noting the optional include_* expansions, which is exactly the missing return-shape information. Only pagination mechanics for next_page and failure modes are left implicit.

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%, including defaults, ranges, and all operator enums, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description restates the filter set and the 25-per-page default but adds no operator or format detail beyond the schema; 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 and resource ('List the locations of a project') plus the returned fields, pagination default, filterability, and the underlying endpoint. An agent can distinguish this from storerocket_get_location (single location) and storerocket_list_projects without opening either schema.

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?

Scope and precondition are explicit: filterable multi-location retrieval scoped to a project, requiring the location:read permission. However, it never names an alternative or states when not to use it (e.g., use storerocket_get_location for a single known location), so usage guidance is clear but not exclusionary.

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