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

The description discloses that this is a GET request, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It also adds useful behavioral context by specifying the field selection and the structure of the returned locations block, going beyond what the annotation alone provides.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds the API path and return shape. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the API call, the parameter context, and the exact returned fields. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter profileId with a clear description. The tool description does not add much beyond restating that profileId references the booking page, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate due to the 100% schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('List the locations configured on a profile') and the resource scope ('booking page'), and even names the exact API endpoint. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_profiles or list_team_members.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to retrieve locations associated with a specific profile. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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