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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral detail: attribute_mask defaults to exactly the names sent, so untouched attributes are preserved, and deliberately widened masks remove attributes absent from the payload.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero filler. The core action leads, the value-shape rules follow, and the mask-default caveat closes it out.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the required inputs, the payload shape, and the destructive edge case. It does not describe the response body or error behaviour, though annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes well beyond it by spelling out the concrete value shape per valueType (BOOL values: [true], URL uriValues, ENUM repeatedEnumValue). That resolves the ambiguity of an untyped array of objects.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Set attributes on a Google Business Profile location.' It also names the related tool google_business_attributes_available, signalling that this tool writes values whose shape that sibling defines, which cleanly separates it from the get/available siblings.

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 tells the agent to consult google_business_attributes_available for the valueType before constructing a value, giving a clear precondition. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance (e.g. vs google_business_attributes_get).

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