List locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notable return contents (static map image URL, coordinates), but it omits the significant behavioral fact that contact details are redacted by default, which is only surfaced in the schema.

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 compact sentences with the resource and its returned fields front-loaded, and the filtering note appended. No wasted text, though it is terse enough that some needed information is absent.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-value burden and does describe the principal fields a caller receives. It is largely sufficient, though it never notes the default redaction of email/phone, which an agent should know before relying on contact text.

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 description coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description connects address_text and additional_info to their filtering role but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, and says nothing about max_results or the contact-detail redaction toggle.

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 the resource (venues/locations) and enumerates the fields returned (address, directions, coordinates, static map image URL), so the agent knows what domain object it deals with. It never explicitly states the verb 'list all' and does not name the sibling get_location, leaving some differentiation work to the tool name.

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 states that filtering by address or additional-info text is optional, which is useful usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_location for a single venue, nor gives any prerequisite or exclusion condition.

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