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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond those: repointing overwrites the existing link, which sharpens the idempotent/set semantics and warns about the side effect. It does not describe auth requirements or post-link behavior, so it falls 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?

Three tightly-written sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by the parameter-sourcing rule and the replace warning. No filler; each sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity, 3-param connection tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, parameter sourcing, and the overwrite side effect. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on success or whether verification is required, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by instructing that googleAccountId and googleLocationId be taken verbatim from list_gbp_locations and are Google resource names, not free text — preventing the most likely misuse.

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 ('links/repoints') plus resource ('a project to a Google Business Profile location'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like set_ahrefs_project, set_ga4_property, set_bing_site, and disconnect_gbp. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Gives clear prerequisite context by pointing to list_gbp_locations as the source of the two Google IDs, and warns that repointing replaces the existing link. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives (e.g. disconnect_gbp) or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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