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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior the annotations do not: results must be filtered to an enabled status, and this is not an account-eligibility check. It still omits rate limits and the 10-name cap, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core transform front-loaded before the selection constraint. Nothing repeats structured data or pads the description.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 4 required, no enums, and thin schema documentation, so the description needs to carry parameter meaning – yet locale and country_code (both required, both affecting result matching) are untouched. The output schema absolves it from explaining return values, but the input side is clearly under-described.

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 only 20% – just customer_id is documented. Of the five parameters, the description only alludes to location_names; locale, country_code, and connection_context get no meaning, and the minItems/maxItems bound on location_names is never mentioned, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Resolve location names to provider IDs, country, type and status', which tells the agent exactly what it gets back. It also draws a boundary against the eligibility sibling ('not account eligibility'), though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

The only usage guidance is about handling the response ('Caller must select an enabled result'), not about when to call this tool. Siblings such as google_ads_benchmark_locations, google_ads_reach_locations, and entities_lookup_by_name overlap in intent and are never referenced.

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