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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the DataForSEO envelope shape (`tasks[0].result` for data, `tasks[0].status_code` for outcome) and the critical warning that a rejected request still returns HTTP 200. That HTTP-200-on-failure disclosure is high-value context no structured field provides.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then cost, then response envelope. Every sentence carries information; no filler or repetition of the schema.

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, yet the description still supplies the envelope/error-handling context an agent needs to interpret that output correctly. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotations, nothing material is missing.

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 100% and the single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema (UUID format, 30-day window). The description only says 'by `id`', adding no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieves queued Google Business Profile updates by `id`') and enumerates the returned fields (text, media, date). An agent can distinguish this fetch tool from the sibling post_..._gmb_updates_submit 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?

The 'charge was on the submit' note implies this is the retrieval half of a submit/fetch pair, which hints at when to use it, but it never names the sibling submit tool or states the precondition (a prior submit producing the id) explicitly. Usage is implied rather than scripted.

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