gbp_insights

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 disclosing behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose authentication needs, whether reviews are full text or summaries, how performance metrics are aggregated, or any rate-limit/account requirements.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for a tool whose details are partially captured by the schema and output schema.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the tool has four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no guidance about the account/location hierarchy or defaults. The description is too thin to fully support correct invocation in varied contexts.

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 0%, and the description only weakly maps to the location_id parameter via 'for a location'. It provides no explanation of days, format, or account_id, so an agent cannot determine how to correctly supply the parameters for a specific account/location.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('Google Business Profile reviews and performance metrics') with a location scope, which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like yelp_business_reviews or ga4_organic_performance. However, 'performance metrics' is somewhat broad, and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from potentially overlapping analytics 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yelp_business_reviews or gsc_search_queries. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria.

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