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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful context: what each request returns (identifiers, metadata, available_actions, exact request bodies, required identifiers, fields, time ranges, notes) and the mandatory sequencing. It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, but for a metadata/setup read tool the added behavioral detail is substantial.

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 description is front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then organizes the rest into Step 1, Step 2, and Optional sections. Each detail earns its place, including the warning that actions_details is REQUIRED and the note preventing a redundant available_actions call.

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 five-parameter workflow tool with no schema descriptions and an output schema, the description supplies the missing procedural and parameter context: which request to make first, which is mandatory, what each returns, and how to use the actions list. The only omissions are the platform parameter and explicit sibling routing, which are minor relative to what is provided.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does most of the work: it explains the request enum values, the actions parameter format and source, and that brands requires brand_id + workspace_id. The platform parameter is never mentioned, leaving one parameter undocumented despite the otherwise strong compensation.

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 clearly states a specific purpose: a setup/planning helper for Google My Business data queries, with a two-step workflow. The 'planning ... queries' and 'REQUIRED before querying' framing implicitly distinguishes it from actual query execution tools like query_data, but it never names the sibling tools explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear ordered workflow (accounts first, then actions_details as required before querying) and marks the other requests as optional, including a useful note that available_actions is already included in accounts. It does not explicitly say to use query_data or execute_action for the actual query execution, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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