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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only but non-destructive, open-world write; the description adds that nothing on Google actually changes and specifies the exact rejection triggers (links, phone, email, prices/offers, HTML, all-caps, repeated keywords) plus the 750-character limit and suspension risk — far beyond annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with what it does, then constraints, then the approval workflow. No sentence is filler.

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 output schema, the description compensates by telling the agent exactly what to do with the returned draft and how the downstream publish step works. 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 100% for the single 'text' parameter, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real constraints the schema lacks: the 750-character cap, the 250+ sweet spot, and prohibited content types.

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 and resource ('Draft a new Google business description') plus its scope ('Creates a DRAFT only — nothing on Google changes'), which clearly separates it from sibling writers such as propose_post or propose_services.

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 routes the workflow: draft here, show the owner the returned text verbatim, then call publish_change only after approval. It also names the source (my_google_profile) and states when the draft is refused.

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