List available attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by outlining the structure of each returned entry (parent, valueType, displayName, repeatable, valueMetadata), which is not present in the schema or annotations. It stops short of discussing pagination or potential edge cases, but the added detail 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage alternatives, then return-field details. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema, rich annotations), the description covers the essential behaviors: what it lists, the two invocation modes, and the shape of each entry. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining the OR relationship between locationId and categoryName+regionCode, and clarifying that 'parent' corresponds to the attribute id used in update_location_attributes. This adds semantic meaning beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and clearly defines the resource ('attributes') with concrete examples and scope ('for a location or for a category+region'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_categories and update_location_attributes by focusing on attribute metadata and legal values.

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 explicitly instructs when to pass locationId versus categoryName+regionCode, and references update_location_attributes as the consumer of the 'parent' id. While it doesn't name alternative tools for contrast, the usage pattern is clear and actionable.

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