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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds the underlying endpoint (GET /Warehouses/{page}) but says nothing about pagination termination, ordering, or how obsolete records affect results beyond the schema's own description of includeObsolete.

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 compact sentences, no filler, with the returned-field summary front-loaded. The trailing API endpoint note is marginal value but doesn't bloat the definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (code, name, default flag, address) that the agent cannot otherwise discover, and the schema fully covers inputs. The only gap is the absence of guidance on filter combinations for incremental retrieval.

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 six parameters (page, pageSize, modifiedSince, warehouseCode, warehouseName, includeObsolete) are already self-documented. The description adds no parameter semantics 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List warehouses') and enumerates the returned fields (code, name, default flag, address), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It is clearly distinct from sibling list_* tools by resource, though it doesn't name an alternative the way the calibration's top example does.

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?

'Warehouse codes are what other tools filter by' implies this is a reference/lookup tool used to obtain codes for downstream filtering, which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of combining with the modifiedSince or includeObsolete filters for incremental sync.

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