Read a Google Business Profile listing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the listing is AS THE MERCHANT LAST SET IT, which can differ from Google Maps due to public/Google suggestions, and notes it's read-only with 0 credits and requires a connection. This is valuable and consistent with annotations.

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 well-structured: it lists contents, explains the critical merchant-set vs Maps nuance, gives usage guidance, and notes prerequisites. No sentence is redundant; it's informative without being bloated, and key contrasts are front-loaded.

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 it's a read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates possible return fields, explains the data source and its relationship to update_business_location, and states the connection requirement. An agent would know exactly what it returns and when to call it.

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 single parameter locationId is fully described in the input schema (coverage 100%), including an example and when it's needed. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 per the rubric is appropriate.

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 it reads a Google Business Profile listing and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, address, phone, hours, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource, and differentiates itself from update_business_location by noting it reads the merchant-set state, which is what update edits.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it before offering to change anything, and to answer “what does our Google listing actually say?”'. Directly references the sibling update_business_location as the tool for edits, and mentions the prerequisite of connecting Google Business Profile. This gives clear context for selection.

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