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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), so the description adds value on the parts annotations cannot: it discloses the per-location fields returned and an isolation guarantee, that similarly named businesses and other workspaces are never merged. That isolation note is genuinely useful context for a multi-tenant read; pagination and ordering remain unaddressed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the qualifying audience and zero redundant wording. The second sentence's isolation caveat earns its place by clarifying scope.

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 read-only summary tool with no output schema and one fully documented optional parameter, the description states what is returned per location and the workspace isolation boundary, which is enough to call it correctly. Only ordering, volume, and pagination behavior are left implicit.

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?

There is a single optional parameter whose schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains user_goal and its privacy constraint. The description says nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but adds no meaning 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 names the resource precisely (each connected Google location in this workspace) and what each entry carries: status, a one-line summary, and what needs attention. It is clearly a portfolio-level roll-up, distinct in scope from a single-location tool, though it does not name the closest siblings (list_google_locations, get_google_business_summary) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

"For an agency or multi-location business" implies the audience and thus when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no statement of when this is the wrong call. Usage is inferable from the scope, not stated.

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