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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the materially important behavior that nothing can be published here and that the agent must not claim success. What it omits is the shape of the response (does it return a cached Q&A list, a deprecation flag, or nothing?), and with no output schema that disclosure would have been valuable.

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 routing instruction is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the reason, the alternative, and the guardrail — a logical order with no filler. It is slightly dense and runs the redirect and the compliance warning together, but every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive status tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to avoid a wrong action: it cannot publish, what to do instead, and what not to report. The only gap is the absence of any statement about return values, which matters slightly more here because no output schema exists to fall back on.

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 (user_goal) and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including a format example. The description adds nothing about it, which is an acceptable baseline given the schema already carries the semantics, but it earns no extra credit.

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 specific resource and its state — Google listing Q&A is retired as of 3 November 2025 — so an agent knows this is a status/blocker tool rather than a publishing tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like prepare_google_listing or set_google_post_options, though it never explicitly says what the call returns (e.g. a deprecation status payload), which keeps it from a 5.

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 the trigger condition ('when asked to post questions/answers or FAQs to Google'), the reason the path is blocked, the explicit alternative ('patch_variation_content on the FAQ content'), adjacent work to keep accurate (attributes/hours), and a hard prohibition ('Never report Google Q&A as updated'). That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the substitute all in one place.

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