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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: what voiceOfMerchantState means, that an unverified listing degrades Search/Maps visibility, and that a null result means Google did not answer. It does not cover auth scopes or rate limits, so not a full 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then adds return details, the consequence of being unverified, the follow-up path, and the null-result edge case. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by describing the return shape (verification state and list with method/state/date) and the null-answer case. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result.

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%, so both parameters (accountId, locationId) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Check whether a Google Business listing is verified') and names the exact fields returned (voiceOfMerchantState, verifications with method/state/date), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gbp_listing and list_gbp_verification_options.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward when the listing is not verified: list_gbp_verification_options gives allowed methods and start_gbp_verification requests a code. It also clarifies the owner enters that code in business.google.com, not here, which prevents a wrong follow-up call.

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