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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail not in structured data: Google omits the placeActionLinks key entirely when no links exist, which tells the agent how to interpret an empty result.

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 lean sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining empty-result behavior. No filler.

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 simple list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete; the empty-result caveat compensates for the missing return-format documentation. Slightly short of full marks because return ordering/shape is left to the agent to discover.

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 pagination and identifier parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') and resource ('action links on a Google Business Profile location'), then grounds it with concrete examples ('Book online', 'Order online'). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling create/update/delete action-link 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?

Usage is implied by the read-only list nature of the tool and its clear name, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., create/update/delete siblings), and no stated prerequisites beyond the required path parameters.

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