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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description earns credit for adding non-inferable behavior: the newest-first ordering 'as Street orders them' and how pagination works with page/page_size. It omits that include triggers side-loaded records in an 'included' block, which is the one meaningful behavioral gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by ordering and paging, ending with the underlying endpoint. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description covers return fields, sort order, and pagination sufficiently to invoke correctly. It stops short of explaining the include/trashed side-loading semantics, which is the only notable omission.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in structured form; this sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces page/page_size usage but adds nothing about include or trashed beyond what the schema states.

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 branches') and enumerates the returned fields (name, address, contact details), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. No explicit sibling differentiation, though the resource noun already disambiguates it from the other list_* tools.

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 implied rather than stated: the description says how to page and what order results come in, but never says when to use this versus street_get_branch for a single record. Adequate for an obvious list-vs-get split, but no explicit routing guidance.

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