Google Business reviews snapshot (Places API)

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

The annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive safety, and the description adds concrete auth and billing requirements (GOOGLE_PLACES_API_KEY, 'Places API (New)' enabled, billing enabled). It also discloses a non-obvious behavioral/compliance consequence related to review aggregation and self-markup, which is valuable context beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences with the fetch action front-loaded, followed by a compliance warning and prerequisites. Each sentence carries distinct value and there is no filler, though the final sentence is somewhat dense with parenthetical billing details.

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 read-only, idempotent snapshot with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned data categories, prerequisites, and a critical misuse warning. It does not specify the exact number or format of returned reviews, but that is a minor omission given the low complexity and the presence of safety annotations.

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?

The description does not explain query, placeId, or language semantics; those are left to the input schema, which covers query and placeId but leaves language with only a default. Since schema coverage is 67%, the absence of parameter-level guidance is a minor gap rather than a critical failure.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Fetch') and names the exact resource (Google Business Profile), the specific data points (rating, review count, latest reviews), and the API pathway (Places API New). It also states the intended use case—reputation monitoring and spotting what visitors praise or complain about—making it easy to distinguish from unrelated sibling tools.

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 description gives a clear use case: monitor reputation and analyze visitor sentiment. It also provides an explicit guardrail about not using the numbers in AggregateRating schema, which helps the agent avoid a harmful downstream action. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the use-case framing is clear enough for routing.

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