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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context by stating the return type (numeric geo target IDs) and a campaign-targeting warning, but it omits details like handling of ambiguous queries, result format, or authentication requirements.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and efficient, clearly stating the tool's purpose. The second sentence is advice about campaign targeting rather than about invoking this tool, making it somewhat tangential and reducing overall focus.

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 simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description conveys the return type and a use case, which is helpful. Yet it does not address how to interpret results (e.g., multiple matches, ambiguous places), nor does it explain the required customer_id, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is only 67%: query and country_code have descriptions, but customer_id has none. The description adds no parameter-level detail—it refers vaguely to 'a place' without specifying format or constraints, leaving the customer_id gap unresolved and adding little beyond 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 states a specific verb ('Find') and a precise resource ('Google's numeric geo target IDs'), which distinguishes it from generic location lookups like gbp_list_locations or highlevel_list_locations. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so the differentiation is by resource specificity rather than direct comparison.

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?

The phrase 'so a campaign can be limited to the area a local business actually serves' implies the intended scenario for local campaigns, giving some implied usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternative tools for location lookups.

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