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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds context annotations cannot express: it requires the owner to have connected Google, and results are cached for up to six hours. It does not describe any failure modes when the connection is absent, so a small gap remains.

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 purpose, then the differentiator, then the prerequisite and caching caveat. Sentences are dense but each carries a distinct fact the agent needs; no padding.

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 input schema, no output schema, and annotations covering only safety, the description carries the rest well: it enumerates what the audit inspects, what the result contains, the auth precondition, and the cache window. An agent has everything needed to select and call 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing input options.

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?

Precise verb+resource ('complete authenticated Google Business Profile audit') plus the exact scope of what it returns (checks, score, failures, fixes). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling audit_google_business_profile tool, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

States when to use it (owner-scoped private data the public audit cannot see), names the alternative tool it supersedes for this case, and gives an explicit precondition: 'call my_shearquery_account first if unsure.' Nothing is left to inference.

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