list_google_business_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds non-obvious behavior by disclosing the feature-flag gate and that no upstream Google call occurs while disabled, which prevents an agent from misreading an empty result as 'no data'. The remaining gap is that it doesn't say what an empty/disabled response looks like.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then gating, then parameters, then negative scope — no filler. The only cost is a slightly choppy telegraphic style, but every sentence carries information.

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 read-only three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, availability gating, parameter choice, and what is excluded from the response. The one unresolved ambiguity is whether the 'one location' framing is triggered by account_id vs location_id and what happens when account_id selects multiple locations.

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 100% and each parameter already carries detailed guidance (including the ChIJ Place ID warning and 'Prefer account_id'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'Pass account_id or location_id' only restates the either/or without adding format or precedence detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource: 'Read regular opening hours and attributes for one Google Business location,' plus negative scope ('does not return the business name, address, phone, or website'), which meaningfully bounds what an agent gets back. However, the stated single-location scope sits awkwardly against the tool name 'list_google_business_locations' and the sibling 'manage_google_business_location', so an agent must reconcile a list-style name with a read-one-location behavior.

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 supplies a real precondition (only active once 'location edits are switched on,' no Google calls while off) and the 'Pass account_id or location_id' hint, which helps an agent decide whether the call will do anything. It never names alternatives — e.g. when to use list_accounts or manage_google_business_location instead — so the when-not guidance is implied rather than stated.

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