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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: the privacy scoping ('Only ever shows this person's own') and the shape of the returned records, which matters because no output schema exists.

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 with zero filler. The returned payload is front-loaded, the workflow hand-off follows, and the access-scope caveat closes it out.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so by listing the fields. Access scope, purpose, and the downstream id hand-off are all present, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The only identifier mentioned (savedLocationId) belongs to other tools, not this one's schema, so it does not add parameter meaning here.

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 states a concrete resource (the connected person's saved delivery locations) and enumerates the returned fields (label, address, notes, default), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also names the downstream siblings (draft_delivery_order, place_delivery_order) that consume the ids, distinguishing this read tool from the save_location/delete_saved_location pair.

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?

It gives a clear use case: fetch an id here and pass it as savedLocationId to draft_delivery_order or place_delivery_order instead of typing an address. That is an explicit routing rule, though it never states when NOT to use this tool (e.g., free-text addresses are still valid).

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