list_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (id and name only) and the exact pagination contract – pass the response's 'next' back as 'cursor' until null. That is behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: what it returns first, pagination protocol second. No filler, no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the pagination loop, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. Nothing essential for a correct call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% on both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the cursor's role in the pagination loop ('pass the response's next value back as cursor until it is null'), which matters because there is no output schema documenting the 'next' field.

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 and resource ('List locations') plus the access scope ('the API key has access to') and the returned fields (id, name). It does not name any sibling, but the resource is distinct from the camera/appliance/zone siblings, so an agent can still select it correctly.

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?

The description implies usage (list the locations your key can see) and gives operating instructions for pagination, but it never states when to prefer this over get_camera, list_cameras, or other discovery tools. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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