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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are 'active' only and carry 'limited data', but never says which fields are omitted or how active is determined, which matters since there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the routing note. The phrase 'limited data' is efficient but vague enough to leave a question open.

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 zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description should convey the shape of the returned geofences; 'limited data' gestures at this without specifying fields. The routing guidance is complete, but the return-value picture is not.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space on parameters.

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 ('All active geofences') plus the underlying API call, and flags the 'limited data' scope. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling workyard_list_geofences, so an agent must infer the difference between 'active' and the full list.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion ('does not say who is clocked in') and names the alternative tool with the parameter needed (workyard_list_time_cards with status working). It stops short of saying when to pick this over workyard_list_geofences or workyard_list_geofence_projects.

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