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

Despite annotations already flagging destructive=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds genuinely new behavior: the two-call preview/confirm protocol with preview_id, and critically that while location edits are off a confirm "changes nothing and does not call Google." It also discloses the shared business-management connection, which agents can't infer from annotations.

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?

Purpose and the two actions are front-loaded, then the safety-critical gating rule. It runs long at nine sentences and repeats schema detail (HH:MM, attributes/has_wifi, day names) that the schema already carries, but every sentence is informative rather than 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 destructive, 8-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the mutation protocol, the blocking prerequisite, the external API call behavior, and explicit scope exclusions. An agent has what it needs to avoid a silent no-op or an unapproved write.

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 100%, so the per-parameter meanings (action enum, preview_id, regular_hours shape, HH:MM and attribute naming) are already fully documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them. It does usefully bind each parameter set to its action, but that cross-reference is already implied by the schema's own per-param descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Change regular opening hours or attributes on a Google Business location") and immediately enumerates the two action modes. It also carves out scope by stating it does not touch name, address, phone, or website, which separates it from the other manage_google_business_* siblings.

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?

Clearly states when each action applies (action=update_hours vs action=update_attributes) and that both must go through preview-then-confirm. It also gives the prerequisite that location edits must be switched on, though it never names the alternative tool to use for the name/address/phone/website changes it excludes.

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