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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: the field-masked update workflow and the requirement to fetch before updating. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is read, then the disambiguation from posts, then the update-workflow prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers the read-before-update workflow that an agent needs. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so profile_id, location_id, and read_mask are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not elaborate on parameter syntax or formats (e.g., the read_mask field-path convention), so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read') and resource ('Google Business Profile location'), then enumerates the fields returned (name, description, website, phones, categories, address, hours, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the posts resource ('This is the business listing itself, not posts published to it'), separating it from sibling post_* 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Read this before any google_business_*_update,' and explains why (Google's updates are field-masked, so you patch back objects fetched here). This is a concrete prerequisite workflow that routes the agent correctly relative to the *_update siblings.

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