Answer a question on a Google Business listing

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the upsert semantics (one answer per account, replacement behavior), that deletion is public and immediate, and that it is confirm-gated. It also states the connection/approval prerequisites. This aligns with annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint) without contradiction and provides valuable operational details.

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 concise but information-dense, spanning only two sentences. It front-loads the primary action and then packs important caveats (upsert, delete confirmation, prerequisites) without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly: the action, the replacement behavior, delete confirmation requirement, and preconditions. The source of questionId is in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat it. The tool is fully specified for correct use.

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?

The schema already covers most parameters (text, delete, confirm, questionId). The description adds meaning around these by explaining the upsert behavior (relating text to replacement) and the confirm-gated deletion, which goes beyond what the schema states. With 60% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying the interaction between text and delete, though it doesn't detail every param's format.

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 (post or delete an answer) and the specific resource (public question on a Google Business Profile listing). It distinguishes from siblings like post_to_google_business (which posts new content) and reply_to_google_business_review (replies to reviews) by focusing on questions. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (to answer a question or delete an answer) and provides critical usage constraints: the upsert behavior (answering again replaces), the confirm requirement for delete, and preconditions (Google Business Profile connected and project approved). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when NOT to use this, but the context is clear enough from the purpose.

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