Raw Google Business Profile API call

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: Bearer token auto-attachment, rejection of foreign-origin paths, and the v1 quirk that readMask/updateMask belong in query parameters. This goes beyond the annotations to explain safety and request construction nuances.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph but each sentence contributes meaning—purpose, service selection, path format, and quirks. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could benefit from a slight structural split.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: supported services, path construction, auth, and a safety constraint. Since this is a raw API caller, the return format is inherently whatever the underlying API returns, so not describing it is acceptable. The description handles the critical gotchas.

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?

Although the schema already describes each parameter, the description adds essential semantics for the service parameter by mapping each enum value to its host and API version. It also provides concrete path examples, which helps the agent construct valid paths beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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?

The description clearly states this tool is an 'escape hatch to call any Google Business Profile endpoint directly, for endpoints without a dedicated tool.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes it from the many sibling tools by specifying when it should be used.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool 'for endpoints without a dedicated tool,' which is a clear usage guideline. It also explains how to choose the correct service and describes the path format, giving the agent the context needed to decide when raw_request is appropriate.

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