Google ratings

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: aggregate-only results, 5-minute caching shared with the reviews tool, forceRefresh bypass, ~10 day data lag, and specific error codes/retryable flags. This goes far beyond the annotation.

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 well-organized into short labeled sections (caching, data lag, error handling), front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information without fluff.

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?

Given the tool has a full output schema and read-only annotation, the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, alternative, caching, data freshness, and error handling, making it fully complete for agent selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining storeId's role in fetching a single location and forceRefresh's cache-bypass behavior, which complements the schema without repeating it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the resource ('Google rating statistics'), and clearly defines scope ('for all locations, or a single location'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pinmeto_get_google_reviews by noting it returns aggregate statistics only.

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?

It explicitly points to the alternative tool for individual review text and sentiment analysis ('use pinmeto_get_google_reviews'), and provides practical usage context through caching, data-lag warnings, and error-handling notes.

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