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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world safety, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: special hours are returned only as special_hours_count (not periods), attribute lookups degrade to attributes=[] on failure, and workspace is optional when only one workspace exists. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not derive from the schema or 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?

The content is front-loaded with the resource summary and then the notable edge behaviors. It is dense but every sentence (special hours count, attributes fallback, workspace optionality) carries decision-relevant information; the detailed attribute-structure sentence is somewhat redundant given the output schema but still aids interpretation.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is not strictly required, yet the description still clarifies the shape of the tricky parts (attributes fields, special-hours count). Combined with the single optional workspace parameter being explained, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that workspace is the customer workspace slug and is optional when only one workspace exists. That fully covers the only parameter and resolves the default=null ambiguity left by 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 opens with a specific verb+resource framing ("Vollständiges Business-Profil") and enumerates exactly what the profile contains: Stammdaten, Beschreibung, Kategorien, Öffnungszeiten, Einzugsgebiet, Öffnungsstatus, Attribute. It is clearly a full-profile read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like gbp_location_info or gbp_list_locations, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 is only implied — an agent infers 'call this to get the profile' — with no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing. The one useful hint is the cross-reference to gbp_update_attributes(action="get") for identical attribute structure, but that is a data-format note, not a selection guideline.

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