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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context annotations cannot: the data is 'Fetched LIVE from Google on every call' (no cached/stale reads, external dependency) and the NOT_FOUND failure mode with a fix path. It does not mention rate limits, latency or auth scopes, which keeps it 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the behavioral note and the failure/remediation path. The field enumeration is dense but each item carries retrieval value given there is no output schema.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields, and it covers the external-live-fetch behavior plus the NOT_FOUND case and its remedy. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and to interpret failure.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains projectId and where to obtain it. The description only implies project scoping via 'the project's linked location' and adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Read-only Google Business Profile listing profile') and an explicit enumeration of the fields returned (title, categories, phone, website, description, hours-period count, attribute taxonomy). This clearly separates it from the other get_gbp_* siblings such as get_gbp_connection, get_gbp_performance, get_gbp_reviews and list_gbp_locations.

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?

It states the failure precondition (NOT_FOUND when no location is linked) and routes the agent to the two remediation tools, set_gbp_connection and list_gbp_locations, which is genuinely actionable. What it does not do is contrast itself directly against get_gbp_connection or get_gbp_optimization, so the sibling-selection reasoning is only partly covered.

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