list_google_business_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: pagination operates over a gallery already fetched from Google rather than requesting a smaller page upstream, and it enumerates the returned fields (resource name, category, format, image URL, date).

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 purpose and the disambiguation before pagination details. The final sentence largely duplicates what the limit/offset schema descriptions already say, which is the only wasted space.

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 five optional parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields and explaining the paging model. It omits how an agent knows it has reached the last page or what happens when no media exists, which are minor gaps for a read-only listing 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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the limit default/max and the offset semantics. The description restates limit 50/200 and offset skipping without adding syntax or guidance beyond the schema, so 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 ('List the photos and videos on a Google Business Profile gallery') and scopes it to Maps/Search. It explicitly separates itself from post-attached media, which is the key ambiguity against the sibling list_media and manage_google_business_media tools.

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?

Clear about the two supported scopes: a single location/account or every accessible GBP location, and it excludes the post-media case. It does not name the sibling tools (list_media, manage_google_business_media) or state when to prefer those, so routing still needs a small inference step.

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