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

Goes well beyond the annotations: explains that CLOSED_PERMANENTLY is deliberately rejected with an error dict because permanent closure is irreversible and belongs in the Google dashboard, warns that changes are publicly visible, and documents validate_only as a dry run. This is exactly the extra context destructiveHint=true alone cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the read/set scope, then per-parameter notes in short lines; no filler. The CLOSED_PERMANENTLY rationale is a full sentence but earns its place as the main safety justification, though the block is slightly dense to parse.

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 dual-mode mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers both branches, the rejected value and its failure mode, the public-visibility consequence, workspace resolution, and the dry-run escape hatch. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 0% with 4 undocumented parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and does: action values, the only two accepted status values, validate_only as a no-write trial run, and workspace as an optional customer slug when only one workspace exists. All four parameters gain meaning absent from 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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: read/set the location's openInfo status, and names the underlying API field so an agent knows exactly which field is touched. This distinguishes it from gbp_manage_hours (hours) and gbp_update_attributes (attributes) without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly frames the two modes (action: get | set) and adds a strong usage constraint: only set deliberately and after confirmation because the change is publicly visible. It does not name sibling alternatives for other profile fields, so it stops short of a full routing statement.

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