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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds substantially beyond them: confirm=false triggers a dry-run, location assets are created automatically once the Business Profile is linked, pinning is idempotent-ish account-wide vs campaign/ad-group scoping, and there is an external auth dependency on Business Profile API approval. That is real behavioral context not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core action and numbers the three decision branches, so it reads well despite its length. It is denser than most definitions need and some parenthetical detail (e.g. the full set of asset types in the first sentence) could be trimmed, but nothing is filler.

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 moderately complex, non-idempotent mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers prerequisites, the dry-run path, the scoping options, and the fallback when no link exists. Return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: confirm (dry-run toggle), campaign_id (pin asset set to campaign), ad_group_id (pin to a single ad group via AdGroupAssetSet, with a concrete branch example), and asset_set_id (select a specific location group like "Bağcılar", sourced from the tool's own location_asset_sets output). Only customer_id is left implicit, which is standard boilerplate.

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 precise verb and resource (attaches Google Business Profile LOCATION assets) and immediately scopes what the tool actually does: detect an existing linked location asset set, optionally pin it, or return link instructions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like connect_business_profile, manage_extension_assets, and add_microsoft_location_target.

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 describes the three branching conditions (asset set exists + campaign_id given → pin; exists without campaign_id → nothing to do; none exists → return linking steps) and names the ad-group-level alternative via ad_group_id. It also flags the upstream prerequisite (Business Profile API access pending approval) so the agent knows when this tool cannot complete the job.

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