safe_mind_list_locations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares 'Read-only,' discloses the authentication requirement (SAFE_MIND_API_KEY or safe_mind_get_api_key), and states the scoping ('Acts on the company of the account behind the key'). It also sketches the return shape (id and name). Only a note on pagination or result-size limits is missing.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: purpose first, then segmentation context, safety, usage routing, and auth. Every sentence carries a distinct payload, though the six-sentence block could be tightened slightly.

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 0-param, read-only list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, how it scopes, how it authenticates, and how it fits with the create sibling. Nothing material is missing.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 is appropriate; the description sensibly adds no redundant parameter prose.

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 (locations, id and name) and immediately distinguishes the resource from its sibling: locations are 'an optional second segmentation next to departments.' An agent can tell it apart from safe_mind_list_departments without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Call it before safe_mind_create_location to reuse existing names exactly') and names the sibling it pairs with, plus the domain condition ('useful for companies with several sites'). Routing is fully specified.

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