list_locations

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already marks this as safe, so the description need not repeat that. It adds value by disclosing the return content ('location names, addresses, and coordinates'), which is useful because no output schema exists. It doesn't cover pagination or ordering, but for a no-parameter list tool that's a minor gap.

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?

The description is exactly two sentences: the first states the core action, the second adds usage context and return summary. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to clarity. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity (no parameters, read-only, simple list), the description covers the essential details: what it lists, the account scope, usage purpose, and return fields. It lacks details on pagination or ordering, but for a typical 'list all' tool this is unlikely to hinder correct invocation. The annotations cover safety, so overall it is complete enough.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is fine since there are none. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so no compensation is needed.

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 states the exact verb ('List'), resource ('locations'), and scope ('for the authenticated account'). It also specifies the intended use cases ('for reader deployment or pass association'), clearly distinguishing it from create/update/delete location tools and the list_templates sibling.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool ('to see available business locations for reader deployment or pass association'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it's the read-only option among location tools.

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