list_google_business_service_areas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly does not spend words on safety. It adds real behavioral context instead: the 20-area cap, the server-side dependency on a maps key, and the warning that Place IDs from view=places are regions rather than the review-link Place ID. It does not describe the shape of the returned area list, which leaves a small gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a clear view-by-view breakdown, with no redundant restatement of parameter names. The closing sentence about the maps key and the update fallback is dense and packs two ideas together, but every clause 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?

A read-only, six-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description covers both modes, the required-parameter condition, the maps-key prerequisite, and the Place ID pitfall. What remains unstated is the return payload for each view, which is acceptable given the tool's read-only nature but leaves the picture slightly incomplete.

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 a baseline of 3 applies and the description must earn more. It does so by stating the cross-parameter conditional (q required for view=places) and by adding the operational constraint that town search needs a maps key on the server, neither of which is derivable from the schema alone.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Read Google Business service areas") and clarifies the domain object as "the towns and postcodes a location covers, up to 20." This is enough to distinguish it from the sibling mutation tool manage_google_business_service_area without opening either schema.

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?

Splits usage cleanly by view: areas (default, one location) versus places (requires q, searches for a town or postcode to add). It also routes the agent away from town search when no maps key is configured, telling it to add a place via the update instead. It stops short of naming the manage_google_business_service_area sibling explicitly.

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