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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the transport hint ('GET /resources') and enumerates 'name, locations, services, availability flag and category structure', which tells the agent roughly what comes back, but says nothing about pagination despite a start_after cursor parameter.

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?

One tight sentence followed by the endpoint path, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every clause carries information; the trailing 'GET /resources' is mildly redundant but harmless.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the field enumeration compensates somewhat for the missing return definition. However, it omits pagination behavior and gives no sense of which filters combine or what defaults apply, leaving gaps for a tool this wide.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including q, email, parent_id, is_category, location_id and the start_after cursor. The description only alludes to 'availability flag and category structure', adding no filter syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List) and resource (resources) and clarifies the domain meaning — 'the people, rooms, tables or equipment that serve customers' — which separates it from waitwhile_get_resource (single fetch) and waitwhile_resources_availability. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

The description implies the browsing/listing use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions against the many sibling list tools (list_services, list_locations, list_users) or against waitwhile_get_resource for single lookups. An agent can infer the situation, but nothing is spelled out.

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