list_warehouses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read, and the return shape is disclosed, but there is no statement about pagination, ordering, result-size limits, or freshness of the utilisation/low-stock figures. Adequate but thin for an unannotated tool.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the resource and its fields. The 'Returns:' block is arguably redundant with the output schema, but it is compact and does not bury the purpose.

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-param read tool with an output schema already present, the description supplies what is needed: the resource and the fields each warehouse carries. Only the return-shape line duplicates the output schema, and nothing about result volume or pagination is stated.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain beyond the implicit 'no filtering available' constraint, which the description does not state but the empty schema makes obvious.

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 ('List') and resource ('warehouses') and even enumerates the fields returned (city, coordinates, utilisation %, cold-chain capability, low-stock line count). It is clearly distinct from the shipment/vehicle/carrier siblings, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no alternatives, no exclusions. For a zero-parameter listing tool the intended use is largely self-evident, so the guidance is implied rather than absent, but nothing in the text routes the agent here versus check_inventory or get_kpis.

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