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

readOnlyHint already declares this a safe read, so the description correctly spends its words on non-obvious behavior: no total count is available, so termination must be inferred from a full page, and certain sensitive fields (private scheduling links, embed codes, email, tax IDs) are omitted from results. That is genuinely useful context the annotations cannot convey.

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 the action and pagination rule, with zero filler. The trailing exclusion clause is slightly terse but 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?

Pagination termination and field exclusions are well covered, but with five fully undocumented parameters and no output schema, an agent still lacks the filter semantics needed to call this correctly for anything other than unfiltered listing.

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 0% and five parameters are present, yet the description only touches pageNumber implicitly through the pagination advice. It says nothing about what staffId, working, or locationGroupId filter, so the agent is left guessing at the meaning and interaction of the three substantive filters.

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+resource ('Read one page of scheduling locations') and the 'one page' phrasing distinguishes it from the singular sibling timetap_get_location. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the list-vs-get split.

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?

Gives real pagination guidance ('Continue pageNumber while the returned page is full; vendor provides no total on this route'), which tells the agent when to keep calling. It offers no guidance on when to choose this over timetap_get_location or the other list_* siblings, nor on when filters should be used.

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