gbp_list_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only operation but says nothing about pagination despite the pageToken/pageSize parameters, filter behavior, or response characteristics — and the phrase 'all locations' slightly over-promises given paginated results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the verb comes first and the scope is stated compactly. It is appropriately lean, though it borders on under-specification, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

Despite being a relatively simple tool, the absence of annotations, an output schema, and parameter documentation means the description must carry more weight. Missing context includes filter syntax, pagination flow, and what fields each returned location contains, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the call or its result.

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 only 25% (only accountId is documented), and the description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides. The syntax of 'filter' and the meaning of 'pageToken' are entirely undocumented, so an agent cannot know how to construct valid filter strings or complete a multi-page iteration.

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 a specific verb ('Lists'), resource ('locations/businesses'), and scope ('for a GBP account'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gbp_get_location (single location) and gbp_list_reviews (reviews, not locations). It is clear and unambiguous about the tool's fundamental operation.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Lists' — an agent can infer this is for enumerating a GBP account's locations, likely to obtain IDs for downstream tools like gbp_get_location or gbp_update_location. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named.

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