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 only the endpoint mapping (GET /locations) and the returned fields; it says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or permission requirements beyond what the schema implies.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding. The trailing "GET /locations" is low-value REST trivia but costs almost nothing.

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 12-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and explicit annotations, the description gives enough to call it correctly — the returned field set is enumerated and the resource is scoped. The only gap is that its substantial filtering capability is never hinted at in prose.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not explain any parameter — no mention of name/barcode exact-match filtering, date-range filtering, hierarchy_level, includes expansion, or order_by defaults — leaving all semantics to the schema.

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 locations") and disambiguates the domain term with concrete examples (sites, buildings, rooms) plus the fields returned. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from upkeep_get_location or upkeep_list_assets, but the resource is unambiguous against the sibling list tools.

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?

Listing is self-evident from the name "List locations", and the parenthetical clarifies what counts as a location. However, there is no statement of when to use this versus upkeep_get_location (single record) or when to reach for upkeep_list_assets instead, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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