list_google_business_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the description is free to spend its words elsewhere - and it does: it discloses that paging retrieves all reviews rather than the first 50, that review text is untruncated, and that each location's total review count is returned. That is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss rate limits or per-call cost of deep paging.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the primary mode and no sentence is filler, but the 'reviews' portion is a single very long clause chain that is harder to parse than it needs to be. Slight tightening would make the paging/filtering facts scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does it: it names the fields an agent will get back (full review text, date, review_name, per-location total count, public link, Place ID). Together with the mode split and the Place ID caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

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 still adds value by explaining the limit/offset pairing as a paging mechanism and by clarifying the account_id vs location_id relationship (prefer account_id; location_id is numeric, not the ChIJ Place ID). It does not describe the workspace_id filter, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 names the resource (Google Business Profile reviews) and the two explicit modes (view=reviews vs view=review_link), each with a precise scope. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling manage_google_business_review, which it references only as the follow-up action for replies/deletes.

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 states which view to pick and for what: reviews for listing/filtering/paging, review_link when the public review URL or Place ID is needed. It also gives a concrete routing rule ('Each review has review_name for manage_google_business_review reply/delete_reply') and an explicit prohibition ('that Place ID is output only and must NOT be passed back as location_id'), which prevents a likely misuse.

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