zernio_get_gmb_locations

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool retrieves locations, but does not mention whether it is read-only, if authentication is required, or the format of the response (e.g., list vs. single object, pagination behavior). The description is too minimal to convey safety or side effects, though no contradiction exists.

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, focused sentence of 14 words that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No redundant or extraneous information is present, and the verb and resource are front-loaded.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It fails to indicate whether the result is a list or details, and does not clarify the relationship to other GMB tools. Given the lack of output schema, the description should at least hint at the return structure for completeness.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters (one required string: accountId). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides ('The Zernio Google Business account ID'). Without parameter-specific usage details or constraints, the description does not enhance understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get Google My Business locations linked to a connected Google Business account.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('Google My Business locations') with a scope qualifier that distinguishes it from sibling tools like `zernio_get_gmb_location_details` (single location) and `zernio_list_google_business_locations_for_connect` (for connection purposes).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like `zernio_get_gmb_location_details` (detailed info on one location) and `zernio_list_google_business_locations_for_connect` (listing for connection), the agent lacks context to choose appropriately. No exclusions, preconditions, or when-not-to-use information is given.

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