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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (depots include vans as well as warehouses) and the GET /depot/list endpoint, but does not describe pagination or result shape beyond what the schema implies. Adequate, not rich.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the resource definition is front-loaded and the cross-reference to the sibling follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers identity, scope and the sibling handoff, and annotations carry the safety profile. The main remaining gap is any explicit statement about pagination, which the schema only partially covers via page/page_size.

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 71%, so most parameters (name wildcard search, page/page_size, sort, sort_order, is_provider, is_default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it neither compensates for the uncovered params nor exceeds the baseline.

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 stock depots') and immediately disambiguates the resource by defining depots as warehouses and technician vans. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling synchroteam_get_depot, which retrieves part quantities for one depot.

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 description routes the agent: use this to enumerate depots, use synchroteam_get_depot when the part quantities of one depot are needed. It gives clear context and a named alternative, but offers no explicit exclusion or prerequisite guidance (e.g. filtering behavior of the name param, pagination expectations).

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