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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — invalid attribute names are silently ignored rather than rejected — but says nothing about update merge/replace semantics, permission requirements, or what a destructive change overwrites, which is a notable omission given destructiveHint=true.

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, both earning their place: the first front-loads what can be changed, the second delivers the critical constraint about attribute-name provenance. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 7-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutable fields and the attributes constraint well, and annotations carry the safety signals. It leaves partial-update semantics (does omitting a field preserve or clear it?) unstated, which is the one gap an agent would still want closed.

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 71%, so the schema documents most parameters, but the description adds real meaning for `attributes.name`: it must come from get_gbp_listing, and invented values are no-ops. It also frames the three text fields as a group, though it does not clarify the locationId/accountId relationship already covered by the 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 (Change/Update) plus the resource (Google Business listing) and enumerates the editable surface: description, website, phone, and category boolean attributes. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the read sibling by naming get_gbp_listing as the source of valid attribute names.

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 a concrete prerequisite: attribute names must be fetched from get_gbp_listing with include: ["attributes"], and warns that inventing them does nothing. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond that, so it stops short of a 5.

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