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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: a 30-minute source lag, the access prerequisite, and precise definitions for 'connected phone calls' (>30s duration) and 'responsiveness' (previous 90 days). These metric definitions materially affect interpretation of the result.

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, followed by access, date semantics, freshness, and metric definitions in a tight sequence. Every sentence carries information, though the density of the metric-definition clause is slightly harder to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a read-only aggregate report, the description covers purpose, access requirements, date bounds, freshness, and metric definitions adequately; only the identity parameters remain unexplained.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it partially delivers: 'Dates are calendar dates inclusive at both ends' clarifies start_date/end_date semantics. However, business_id and connection_id receive no explanation at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Read the authorized advertiser's live Google Local Services aggregate account report') and names what it is not (signed-case revenue or lead-rating reporting), which routes away from rate_lsa_lead. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_lsa_report, leaving some ambiguity between the two report tools.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('Requires linked manager-account access') and a negative disambiguation ('not signed-case revenue or lead-rating reporting'), which is useful context. It stops short of stating when to choose this over get_lsa_report or get_lsa_conversations, so selection guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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