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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the tool is scoped to the connected workspace/site, depends on what is connected, and requires no domain/site parameter. It also aligns with the readOnlyHint by describing a read operation. Minor additional details like pagination or empty-result behavior are not necessary because an output schema exists.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, usage boundary, and scoping instruction. Every sentence contributes distinct information—there is no filler or repetition. The most decision-relevant information (what it reads and when to use it) appears first, and the call-direct guidance comes last but still earns its place.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it versus a sibling, scope, and the fact that no domain/site parameter is needed. The caveat about connected actions is useful context, and nothing needed for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter explanation. The description reinforces that 'keywords' are 'money keywords' and that the action is about local visibility, but it does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema's own descriptions. The enum on 'action' is self-documenting, and the optional 'keywords' array is already clearly explained in the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('local search presence of the connected business'), and enumerates the concrete data covered: Business Profile locations, local ranking for money keywords, and review ratings. It also explicitly routes local/map-pack questions to this tool and national-ranking questions to a sibling, so it is readily distinguished from serp_competitors.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Use for local and map-pack questions; for national rankings use serp_competitors.' The description also tells the agent to call directly with no domain or site parameter, preventing a common unnecessary-parameter failure. This is actionable and leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke the tool.

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