zernio_get_gmb_place_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as 'get place action links' but does not discuss return format (list vs. single), pagination, error handling, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation. Minimal transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the key information. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two required parameters and no output schema. However, the description lacks details about the nature of the returned data (e.g., array of links, object structure, or if pagination exists). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% with existing descriptions for both parameters (accountId, locationId). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('place action links'), and the context ('for a Google My Business location'). It provides concrete examples (order food, book appointment) and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like zernio_create_gmb_place_action and zernio_delete_gmb_place_action.

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 does not explicitly provide when or when-not to use the tool, nor does it mention alternatives. However, the tool name and sibling set (especially create and delete variants) imply its purpose as a read operation. The lack of explicit guidance on prerequisites or scenarios limits its score.

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