List locations

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is not the description's burden. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by noting that identifiers are stable and that both English and Arabic names are returned, which helps an agent reuse the output correctly.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and output shape, the second states the intended use. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description explains the returned record shape and the workflow role. Combined with the schema's pagination fields and the annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it 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?

Both parameters (cursor and pageSize) are fully described in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description provides no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('the organization's locations'), and further specifies the output contents: identifier plus English and Arabic names. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as jisr_departments_list or jisr_business_units_list.

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 an explicit use case: resolve names to stable identifiers before filtering other tools. It does not name alternatives or list when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool when a location identifier is needed.

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