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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing that only named networks are touched, all other attributes are preserved, each network is validated against Google's category-specific allowed set before writing, and unsupported networks are reported rather than silently dropped. It also documents the confirm=false preview path, which materially changes agent behavior for a destructive write.

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?

Long but every sentence earns its place: read/write switch, the sibling-routing rationale, the `links` syntax, the accepted names, the `remove` semantics, the preservation guarantee, the category validation, and the preview flag. The read-vs-write instruction is front-loaded, and the labeled segments (WHY A SEPARATE TOOL) make it scannable.

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 4-parameter destructive write tool with 0% schema coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly, and since an output schema exists it need not describe return values. No material gap remains.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: `links` is defined as comma-separated `network=url` pairs with a literal example and an accepted-name list including the twitter/x alias, `remove` as comma-separated network names, `confirm` as the preview toggle, and `location` alone as read mode. This fully compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 pair (reads and sets) on a precise resource (social media links on a Google Business Profile) and enumerates the exact networks covered. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from gbp_update_location, so the 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 guidance: call with `location` alone to READ, pass `links`/`remove` to WRITE, and set confirm=false for a preview. It names gbp_update_location as the tool that cannot handle these attributes and explains why, which is exactly the alternative-selection information an agent needs.

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