audit_google_business_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses the return structure and specific scoring rules (missing service areas or an area over 80 straight-line miles caps the score). It does not cover auth/permission needs or rate limits, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return payload; the section list is long but informative and the scoring caveat is placed last. Minor verbosity in the parenthetical section enumeration, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job explaining return values and scoring rules. However, the schema marks zero required parameters, and the description never clarifies that a location identifier (account_id or location_id) is needed to target the audit, leaving an ambiguity for a zero-required-arg 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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already distinguish account_id, location_id, and workspace_id in detail, including the warning not to use the ChIJ Place ID. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run a live local-profile audit for a connected Google Business Profile location,' and enumerates what it returns (score, grade, section scores, recommendations). It is clearly distinct from list_/manage_ siblings by being an audit rather than a CRUD operation, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 audit framing implies when it is useful (checking profile completeness), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the manage_google_business_location or list_google_business_locations alternatives.

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