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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds critical context they don't convey: the post goes LIVE and PUBLIC immediately, there is no draft state and no undo. That directly changes agent behavior (mandatory human approval) and exceeds what the structured hints provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its immediacy, then the approval requirement, then the scope limit. No filler; every sentence carries an actionable constraint.

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 non-idempotent, destructive write with no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral essentials: immediate public effect, irreversibility, required human confirmation, and unsupported post types. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely.

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% and all three parameters (summary, projectId, languageCode) are documented in-schema with constraints and sourcing. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 for a fully-documented schema 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 (Publishes) and resource (a new "What's New" post on the linked Google Business Profile location). It is unambiguous and clearly distinguished from read-side siblings like list_gbp_posts or delete_gbp_review_reply.

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 pre-call procedure (show the user the exact text and get explicit approval) and a scope limit (only standard posts, no event/offer/alert). It does not name an alternative tool or restate the when-not condition in terms of siblings, but the usage context is clear.

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