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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context by disclosing that results include nested sub-locations (rooms), which is not visible from the annotations or the flat parameter list. It does not address pagination behavior or result volume, so credit stops at 3.

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 with no waste: the substantive scope detail comes first and the endpoint reference is a compact trailing detail. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description could have sketched the returned shape (id, name, nested rooms) rather than only the endpoint. The hierarchy hint is helpful but leaves the payload to inference.

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 each of the four parameters (name, page, per_page, direction) is documented inline with defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List locations') and adds useful domain detail that locations include sub-locations (rooms) where lessons take place. This distinguishes it from the other list_* siblings by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with any named alternative.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool to enumerate venue/room data before creating or scheduling lessons. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of the name filter as a lookup path, and no stated alternatives.

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