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

Annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds two things annotations cannot: the shape of returned records and the pagination contract ('Paged: use next_page'). It stops short of stating effective default page size at runtime or any rate limits, but the added context is meaningful.

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, zero filler: what it lists and the fields, what can be filtered, how paging works. The most decision-relevant information leads.

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 read-only list endpoint with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, returned fields and pagination. The only remaining gap is disambiguation from the active-geofences sibling, which matters for correct tool selection.

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 coverage is 100%, including the eq:/like: name semantics and next_page guidance, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates the filterable fields at a high level, adding nothing the schema does not already say.

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 geofences / work sites') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, place, enabled, radius), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling workyard_list_active_geofences, leaving the reader to infer that this is the unfiltered/all-states variant.

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 names the available filters (name, enabled state, project), which implies when each is useful, but it never states when to prefer this over workyard_list_active_geofences or how to chain it with workyard_list_geofence_projects. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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