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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint (ids must come from the response, never fabricated) and the id format, but says nothing about result volume, ranking, or that calls reach Google externally.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and output artifact, then the qualifiers. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does so by naming the id format and the pick-one rule. For a six-param tool, the undocumented optional params (setup_id, connection_id, language_code) are the remaining gap.

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 50%, and the description supplies meaning for the two required params (query = name, region_code = two-letter country). It leaves setup_id, connection_id, language_code and user_goal entirely to the schema, so it does not fully compensate for the uncovered half.

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 (Find) and resource (Google category ids in categories/gcid: form), plus the scoping inputs (by name, for a country). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_google_industry_details or list_google_locations, so an agent can route here without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the triggering contexts (new listing or a category change) and a post-call instruction ('Pick one returned id; never invent one'). It does not name an explicit alternative tool for related lookups, which keeps it below a 5.

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