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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write; the description goes further by disclosing that the listing is created UNVERIFIED and invisible on Maps until verified, that guideline violations cause suspension, and that confirm=false performs validation only with no creation — rich context beyond the structured hints.

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-loaded with the core action, then organised into eligibility and safety blocks. It is dense but nearly every clause adds actionable policy or format detail; the eligibility section could be marginally tighter.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies enough for an agent to call this correctly (eligibility, verification chain, confirm semantics), though a few optional parameters remain unaddressed.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must carry the burden, and it explains the non-obvious params well: title constraints (no keywords/city), country format ('2-letter code (TR)'), primary_category name-or-id with a sibling reference, and hours free-text format. However, phone, website, description, postal_code, and account are left undocumented.

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 and resource ('CREATES a NEW Google Business Profile listing (a new business on Maps/Search)'), immediately distinguishing it from gbp_update_location, gbp_create_post, and connect_business_profile in the sibling list.

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 gives the eligibility preconditions (real business, physical address, owner authorisation, no existing duplicate — 'search first'), abstention cases (PO box/virtual office), and the required follow-up workflow (run gbp_verification_options then gbp_start_verification). It also names when to use confirm=false vs confirm=true.

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