List facilities

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clarifies that results are restricted to what the configured user key can access and states the return contents. It does not disclose potential rate limits or pagination, but for a simple read-only list tool, the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, and the second provides a clear usage trigger. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-annotations, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it states what is listed, under what access scope, what fields are returned, and when to call it first. There is no missing information an agent would reasonably need to invoke this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description adds value by explaining the output (license numbers and license types), which is beyond the empty 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List the facilities') and adds meaningful scope: facilities accessible by the configured METRC user key, with license numbers and license types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on packages, items, lab tests, or transfers.

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 gives a clear conditional trigger: 'Call this first if you don't know which license number to use for other tools.' This tells the agent when the tool is valuable, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to call it.

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