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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a ~2 month data lag, ~18 month history, ranking by impressions, and the crucial caveat that Google reports exact counts only for high-volume terms while the rest are 'fewer than N' and counted not guessed.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with what the tool returns before giving caveats and routing. The heavy parentheticals ('searches used to find your business' in the dashboard) add some visual clutter but every clause carries actionable information.

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-shape detail is unnecessary, and the description still summarizes the return (ranked terms plus summary). Data lag, history depth, cardinality caveat, and location matching are all covered; only the numeric parameters remain unexplained.

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% with 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does well for location (a gbp_list_locations value OR a business name/domain, auto-matched) but says nothing about limit, months, offset, or include_low_volume, leaving four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 resource (actual search terms people typed on Google Search & Maps before the listing appeared) with a concrete scope (ranked by impressions with a summary). It explicitly distinguishes its data from gbp_insights, which handles aggregate totals, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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 explicit when-to-use ('the only source that shows WHICH queries a location ranks for locally, so you can see which service or category is missing') and names the alternative for a different need ('For impressions/calls/directions totals use gbp_insights instead'). Both the selector and the exclusion are stated.

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