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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds material context they cannot convey: the deletion is scoped to MisarSEO's own record only and the Google location itself is untouched, plus the cascading side effect that all GBP tools break until relinking. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive unlink.

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 sentences, no filler, and the effect-plus-scope caveat is front-loaded before the downstream consequence. Every clause earns its place and the em-dash clause clarifies the blast radius efficiently.

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 single-parameter destructive toggle with no output schema, the description covers what is removed, what is not, and the operational fallout — enough for an agent to call it correctly and warn appropriately. No meaningful gap remains given 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 description coverage is 100% — projectId is documented in-schema with required-ness and a pointer to list_projects. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema does the work here.

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?

'Removes the project's link to its Google Business Profile location' names a specific verb (removes) and a precise resource (the GBP link record), and is immediately distinguishable from the write-side sibling set_gbp_connection. An agent knows exactly what operation this is without opening the 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?

The description states the consequence-driven context ('every GBP tool stops working for the project until it is linked again'), which tells the agent when this action is appropriate and what it costs. It does not explicitly name set_gbp_connection as the counterpart/reversal route, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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