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 and scope profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set and the underlying GET /locations call, but says nothing about pagination behavior or rate limiting beyond what the cursor param already 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 plus the endpoint marker, front-loaded with the resource and its payload. No filler or repetition.

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 what comes back, which is the main gap it needs to fill. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering behavior, but the schema covers those parameters adequately.

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% – desc, limit, external_id, start_after and country_code are each documented in the schema. The description lists response fields rather than adding parameter meaning, so the 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+resource ('List the account's locations') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, address, time zone, opening hours, settings). The plural 'locations' plus the 'GET /locations' endpoint cleanly separates it from the sibling waitwhile_get_location.

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?

It gives downstream context ('Use the ids to filter visits, services and resources') but never states when to pick this over waitwhile_get_location or waitwhile_get_location_status, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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