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

Discloses async mechanics not visible in annotations: the call returns immediately with status 'pending', then a background job publishes to Google and transitions the status to 'published' or 'failed'. This is exactly the kind of eventual-consistency context an agent needs before retrying or polling, and annotations alone (destructive/openWorld/idempotent) would not convey it.

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 short sentences, all earning their place: purpose, the constraint, and the response lifecycle. The constraint is front-loaded before the async detail.

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 supplies the missing return-value semantics (pending → published/failed) and the required-input constraint. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret the call correctly is absent.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including parent_id's hashid/external_id forms. The description only reinforces that parent_id is required, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — 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 and resource ('Reply to an existing profile comment'), scopes it to Google Business reviews, and immediately rules out the sibling behavior of creating top-level comments. An agent can distinguish this from comments_create without opening either 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?

Explicitly states the when-not condition ('Top-level comments are NOT allowed — you can only reply to a review that already exists') and that parent_id is required. It does not name the alternative sibling tool (e.g. comments_create) for the top-level case, leaving that inference to the agent.

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