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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds the underlying endpoint (GET /2/locations) and terminology context, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or filtering behavior beyond the optional flag.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the terminology clarification placed immediately after. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 single-optional-param read tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient; the terminology mapping is the key missing piece from the schema and it is supplied. It stops short of describing what a returned schedule record contains, though with no output schema that is a minor omission.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents only_unconfirmed. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 the schedules in the account') and then resolves a genuine naming ambiguity by explaining that the API calls a schedule a 'location' and that its id is the location_id every shift belongs to. That mapping is exactly what lets an agent distinguish this tool from siblings like wheniwork_list_shifts.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that location_id is 'the location_id every shift belongs to' hints this tool is the way to resolve that id before shift operations, but there is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' guidance and no mention of alternatives such as wheniwork_list_shifts.

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