gbp_deprecation_lint

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses 'No authentication required' and the possible verdict values (clean | deprecated_found | fetch_error), but says nothing about fetching behavior, network/timeout handling, or rate limits that matter for a live-page scan.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the checked features, then the auth note. Structure is clean and readable. The verdict line is somewhat redundant since an output schema exists, costing it a point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers what is scanned, what it detects, and the auth requirement. It could add more on scan behavior (rendering, redirects, error conditions) but is essentially complete for a single-argument check tool.

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 0% and the single 'url' parameter has no schema description, so the description does not compensate with format guidance (e.g., full absolute URL vs. relative). The parameter is largely self-evident given the tool name, so the gap is minor rather than severe.

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?

Specific verb ('Scan') plus a precise resource ('a page for deprecated Google Business Profile features'), and it enumerates exactly what is checked: chat widget embed scripts, dead .business.site links, and Reserve with Google integrations. No sibling tool in the list covers GBP deprecation, so it is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated checks (use it to find deprecated GBP features on a page), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternatives. For a narrow, unique tool this is adequate, though it doesn't route the agent against any competing sibling.

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