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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the raw endpoint (GET /Warehouses/{page}) but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size behavior, or result ordering beyond what the schema already documents.

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, zero filler, with the returned-field list front-loaded and the practical note about warehouse codes second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 and explains the downstream role of warehouse codes. What is missing is only minor: pagination semantics and whether obsolete warehouses are excluded by default are left entirely to the schema.

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 documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, or interaction details, so baseline 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 and resource ('List warehouses') and enumerates the fields returned (code, name, default flag, address), so an agent knows what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, though no sibling overlaps with warehouse listing, so the risk of confusion is low.

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 the reason to call it—resolving warehouse codes for use in other calls—but never states when to prefer it or what the alternative would be. Usage is implied, not spelled out.

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