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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is supplied structurally. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that — the Owner/Admin authorization requirement and a confirmation step — but 'always asks first' is ambiguous about whether the tool itself prompts or the agent must obtain consent, and nothing explains why this create is flagged destructive (e.g., main-location demotion).

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 tight sentences with the core action and required fields front-loaded, then permissions. The closing fragment 'always asks first' is under-specified and would benefit from a clearer formulation, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers every input plus the authorization and confirmation context. What remains thin is edge-case behavior — duplicate names, timezone validation failures, or what happens to existing locations when main:true is set beyond the schema's one-line note.

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?

With only 22% schema description coverage, the description has to carry the load, and it does: it names all nine fields, marks address/city/state/country/zip/phone as optional against the required name and timezone, adds 'IANA' to timezone (absent from the schema), and restates the main:true effect. Length constraints and formats (e.g., zip/phone shape) are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Add a location ... to the organization') and even defines the resource as 'an office or branch', plus enumerates the fields it carries. The only gap is that it never names the obvious sibling location.update to contrast create-vs-modify, though the verb 'Add' makes the distinction largely self-evident.

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 real gating context: 'The organization's Owner or an Admin only' tells the agent a permission prerequisite exists, and 'always asks first' signals a confirmation step before the call. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to location.update or of stating what to do if the caller lacks the role.

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