List places

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' clause is partly redundant. However, 'the whole tree in one call' adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result is complete and unpaginated, so the agent needn't loop or page. It stops short of describing ordering or scale limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It is short, front-loads the return shape, and every clause carries information (contents, ids, counts, prerequisites, safety). The first sentence is a verbless fragment and 'Read-only' restates an annotation, which are minor blemishes rather than wasted bulk.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return shape itself, and it does: properties, nested locations as a tree, ids, and per-location item counts. Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to use the result.

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 there is no parameter meaning for the description to add and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are needed to get the full tree.

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 (properties and their locations as a tree: rooms › closets › shelves) and the payload (ids plus item counts per location), which is far more specific than the title 'List places'. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_items or list_categories purely from this text.

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 explicit when-to-use routing: call it to obtain a locationId or propertyId before create_item, move_item, list_items or create_location. It also states a second condition — verifying a place exists before adding it again — which covers the duplicate-prevention case and names the concrete downstream tools.

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