Google Business reviews snapshot (Places API)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable operational context: it requires GOOGLE_PLACES_API_KEY with 'Places API (New)' enabled, billing must be enabled, and mentions the free monthly allowance. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand prerequisites.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The action verb is front-loaded, and the operational requirements are stated clearly. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, and the data returned. It does not describe the exact response format, but given the annotations and the nature of the tool, this is adequate.

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 description coverage is 67% (query and placeId have descriptions; language does not). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, leaving the language parameter undocumented. With moderate coverage and no compensation in the description, it falls short of the baseline 3.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Google Business Profile') with concrete data types (rating, review count, latest reviews). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the purpose is unique enough among the listed siblings (no other tool targets reviews).

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 provides clear use cases: 'source for AggregateRating schema and to monitor reputation.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the stated uses give clear context for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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